To Indians and followers of Hindu religion

[shuntmaster]

@Yeti,

You mentioned one date, 1206 to 1707, which I kind of agreed with, but not enthusiastically, not fully, not whole-heartedly, if you get what I mean. The reason was that while I agreed with the 1206, in spite of the thread originator having stated clearly that he wanted that considered, I wasn't happy with the 1707; both my reactions surprised myself actually.

Thanks for the excellent post and some good lessons on history and putting things in perspective.
When Pakistanis claim 1000year Muslim rule in India, where does it come from? If we fix 1857 as the end date, does it mean that they claim mid-9th century as the start of the Islamic domination of the subcontinent? or only the areas consisting of todays Pakistan (Punjab and Sindh)?
Is basic math different in modern Pakistan?

 

[Frank Martin]

I am from South India,
Here we dont have any traces of what the thread starter said, i dont give a damn about that..i only care about who rules India now.

 

[Yeti]

@Yeti,

Your repeated references to 'dates' made me extremely nervous - had I inadvertently said something I shouldn't have, and not noticed? - and I went back and looked at everything very carefully.

It's all right actually. Nothing to worry about; just an elderly man's quibbles.

You mentioned one date, 1206 to 1707, which I kind of agreed with, but not enthusiastically, not fully, not whole-heartedly, if you get what I mean. The reason was that while I agreed with the 1206, in spite of the thread originator having stated clearly that he wanted that considered, I wasn't happy with the 1707; both my reactions surprised myself actually.

The first date was Iltutmish; he was the first to rule from within India, although a deft debater would point out that a larger view of south Asia would include Afghanistan, and therefore would include both Ghor and Ghazni, would force consideration of both Ghurid and Ghaznavid, and would push things back a couple of centuries.

A parochial view would even say that bin Qasim should be taken into consideration, even though his contribution to history was so much more ephemeral, precisely because a parochial view was being taken, and the old British historical perspective of Hindu India, Muslim India and British India were being adopted. This is how I was taught, by the way, as this is how the demarcations are done in Calcutta University even today. Personally, I would prefer to take a non-parochial view based on social, economic and political development and analyses, and would seek rather more meaningful dates.

However, as it happens, I agreed with one of your sets of dates partially; that pair of dates was the closest fit that I found in your various listings.

The problem was with the second date, again a date proposed and validated by the British: this was the death of Aurangzeb i n 1707, and I do think that putting everything after that event into British history is a bit of cheek at best, considering development of the country, misleading as well.

I would personally prefer a date of 1857, as the Mughal Empire lingered on till then, and it was unfinished business. That is what I meant by a discrepancy of 150 years, not that your date-pairs were wrong, but that my preference of the second date in this sequence was one 150 years later.

Sorry for the unnecessary hullabaloo. This happens when you make the mistake of letting elderly people ride their hobby horses.

Sir who am I to question a senior defence person like you I am just a arm chair general part of the reason I joined PDF is to learn from guys like yourself you have much knowledge to give to us newbies

 

[Jet Li]

I am from South India,
Here we dont have any traces of what the thread starter said, i dont give a damn about that..i only care about who rules India now.

off topic but i am curious to hear from a south indian.

why do north indians hate you south indians?

 

[Yeti]

off topic but i am curious to hear from a south indian.

why do north indians hate you south indians?

Are you here to flame? who says North Indians 'hate' South Indians hate is a strong word there is perhaps a divide like North/South divide that is found in UK or in US between the east and west coast. Im North Indian and I been South India numerous times and never experianced anything but love at the end of the day we are all Indians!

 

[Jet Li]

Are you here to flame? who says North Indians 'hate' South Indians hate is a strong word there is perhaps a divide like North/South divide that is found in UK or in US between the east and west coast. Im North Indian and I been South India numerous times and never experianced anything but love at the end of the day we are all Indians!

then how do you explain this?

Yahoo! Answers - Why do north indians hate south indians?

Why do north indians hate south indians? - Yahoo! Answers

Why do some of the North Indians look down upon south Indians? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[Yeti]

then how do you explain this?

Yahoo! Answers - Why do north indians hate south indians?

Why do north indians hate south indians? - Yahoo! Answers

Why do some of the North Indians look down upon south Indians? - Yahoo! Answers

you using yahoo answers as a source? god help us all i dont think i can even be bothered to answer you now

 

[shuntmaster]

off topic but i am curious to hear from a south indian.

why do north indians hate you south indians?

Its like this, you see. Pakistanis hate all Indians, so north-Indians hate Pakistanis. But South-India is too far from Pakistan, so south-Indians find it difficult for their hate to reach Pakistan. Also, south-India is covered by sea on 3 sides and its more difficult to hate the sea. So, the only option left is for south-Indians to hate north-Indians.

then how do you explain this?

Yahoo! Answers - Why do north indians hate south indians?

Why do north indians hate south indians? - Yahoo! Answers

Why do some of the North Indians look down upon south Indians? - Yahoo! Answers

Then you have the answers in 'Yahoo Answers' itself. Why are you asking it here?

 

[Subramanian]

off topic but i am curious to hear from a south indian.

why do north indians hate you south indians?

I dont think they hate us but they sure do have a superiority complex.South indians are more chilled out and cerebral,think before u act types,northies are the opposite ,warm blooded act before u think types.

These are just general stereotypes and there could be lot of exceptions to this rule as with any rule.

otherwise not too different.these days everyone acts and behaves the same except for the ones who are not in cities.

 

[Jet Li]

Its like this, you see. Pakistanis hate all Indians, so north-Indians hate Pakistanis. But South-India is too far from Pakistan, so south-Indians find it difficult for their hate to reach Pakistan. Also, south-India is covered by sea on 3 sides and its more difficult to hate the sea. So, the only option left is for south-Indians to hate north-Indians.



Then you have the answers in 'Yahoo Answers' itself. Why are you asking it here?

I find it that Central Indians are the ones that hate Pakistanis the most.

 

[Ammyy]

I find it that Central Indians are the ones that hate Pakistanis the most.

And how you found that ??

 

[Jet Li]

And how you found that ??

so they love us?

 

[jayron]

South India historically hasn't faced a lot of difficulty. The invading armies could never reach the south with full force. So south is a little more tolerant than the north. Both of them think they are superior.
Though the Tamils felt different from others during the early years of partition, the central government did a great job of promoting national unity without threatening the local culture. Slowly and steadily, linguistic identity is giving way for national identity and overall development.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thanks for the excellent post and some good lessons on history and putting things in perspective.
When Pakistanis claim 1000year Muslim rule in India, where does it come from? If we fix 1857 as the end date, does it mean that they claim mid-9th century as the start of the Islamic domination of the subcontinent? or only the areas consisting of todays Pakistan (Punjab and Sindh)?
Is basic math different in modern Pakistan?

I was a little taken aback to read you saying that 'Pakistani' claim 1000 year Muslim rule in India. Actually, Pakistanis can't claim this, nor can Indians deny this. It isn't a Pakistani/India thing. It's good history and bad history, and good history is not done by one side, bad history is not exclusive to one side. It doesn't work that way.

If an individual (Pakistan as a nation has made no claims, so let's not drag the country in) claims that Muslim rule in India has been a thousand years long, he or she would be dead wrong. There have been Muslim rulers, Muslim ways of looking at land administration and jurisprudence, religious clashes between the ruler and the ruled, sometimes when the ruler was Muslim and the ruled were Hindus, political clashes between the ruler and ruled, the ruler possibly from any religion, the ruled from any religion - what was Muslim rule? For that matter, what was Hindu rule? That's a joke. Or rather that was the British historian's way of looking at it, so that he could keep a whole book aside for British Indian rule.

In the post you have cited, I have been thinking about and defining things for a different purpose, hence left out binQasim and talked about events nearly 500 years later. But I could just as easily have included it if the definition of the question had been, "How old was the earliest state use of Muslim laws in India?" It automatically become co-terminous with bin Qasim OR (a big caveat) the earliest coming of Islam to India in Kerala!!! The first mosque's establishment (in the Beary territory) before the 8th century was out might be another landmark.

I'd love to answer your question(s) but you need to reword them; just now you sound very hostile, and have managed to scare the **** out of me.

 

[Kambojaric]

1. Uzbeks are in fact Turks, formed into their Uzbek identity in three phases: first during the Mongolian conquests of Genghis Khan himself, when the floating population of central Asia still keeping to pastoral ways of life largely escaped, but the city dwellers, very largely Iranian, were slaughtered in great numbers; second, during the even more bloody invasions of Timur, in which practically the last remnants of Iranians in Central Asian cities were wiped out, and the first traces of Mongols slowly adapting to the way of living of their neighbours and near-kinsmen the Turks and calling themselves Uzbek began to be seen, among others, as the Uzbegs; last, during the consolidation of these loose alliances and conversions under Shaybani Khan, Khan of the Uzbek's.

Which is precisely what i said. That Uzbek's are a Turkic people. From what i have read they started referring themselves as Uzbek's after the Khan of the Golden Horde, Uzbek Khan as they believed they were his descendants. How far that is true, hard to say.

About the second bolded part, well Tajikistan still survives so there is still a Persian presence in Central Asia along with the Tajik's in Afghanistan. Of course when you say cities i suppose you mean Samarkand, Bukhara i.e the great cities of Khwazarem, wont argue with you on that.