Top 10 Most Significant Battles in the History of the Subcontinent

[lkozhi]

3. More details are here:TIPU SULTAN - VILLAIN OR HERO? I agree that there were muslims in kerala .People used to convert to islam especially servants of muslim households when they saw the better treatment they had compared to hindu elite who used to call out to keep them away. THe muslim mosques were given land by Hindu Kings and enjoyed heavy trading rights and also lead the navy of Zamorin.
This structure broke down when hyder and Tipu came down , the native muslims got a sense of power and did lot of atrocities in Tipus name. Essentially caused hindu population to flee their land and properties to travancore. Thus muslims became dominant religion of the Malabar with hindus becoming a minority in those areas. More on this will turn the thread to religions discussion i feel.

2. Zamorin had fought several naval wars with portugese almost keeping them at bay till 1600 when he killed his own muslim admiral kunjali marakkar. That i think makes more sense in the discussion of Battle of Diu.
But this battle was around 150 years later . Zamorin of this time commited suicide when hyders soldiers rushed in to calicut.
On a fun note: Calicut was named Islamabad by Tipu .

 

[Rig Vedic]

Obviously your answers are motivated by some spirit other than an interest in military history or contemporary military analysis.

Whatever

Please think carefully before answering - are all forces that demolish temples non-Indic?

Mostly

Are forces that destroy other places of worship, churches, for instance, or mosques, also non-Indic?

Depends. For example, the at the time of the Goa inquisition, the Church Fathers used to take great delight in torturing people to death in the most gruesome manner - they used to hack of body parts bit by bit, until the only thing left of the poor Hindu was the head and torso. And they would take great pains to make sure that he did not die prematurely, the better to enjoy the torture. All this in front of the family of the Hindu. Now, if such a Church and its holy Fathers are destroyed, who can doubt that it would be an act of great merit?

Haven't you changed subjects abruptly? You were talking about forces, and in order to illustrate their depravity, you now talk about the individual Afzal Khan. Are the two the same, or is it a philosophical tenet to extend flexibly from the particular to the general without warning?

I'm sure Afzal Khan had many like-minded fellows in his forces, who saw nothing wrong with demolishing temples of Kaffirs.

My questions at point 3 were five in number, but your response seems to address only the first of those. It would be interesting to have your answers of the remaining questions, as it will clear up what you think Islamisation, or Islamicisation was, other than random conversions. If you feel your answers already given suffice, please say so.

The questions are mostly speculative, and the answer is adequate. Considering the history of Islam, from Morocco to Indonesia, what is observed is that populations tend to convert once political power is in Islamic hands. I am not aware of any case where a nation became an Islamic majority nation without political power, solely through grass-roots proselytization.

 

[lkozhi]

There are some more south indian battles
1. veluthampi+Paliyath achans vs british( land war+first revolt of armed forces against British )
2. Tipu vs British srirangapattanam(land plus minimal navy)
3. The veerapandya kattabomman vs British(land)
4. pazhassi raja vs British. (jungle )
5. Kunjali marakkar vs Portugese (naval)

which are pretty important for us south indians.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Obviously your answers are motivated by some spirit other than an interest in military history or contemporary military analysis.

Whatever

Please think carefully before answering - are all forces that demolish temples non-Indic?

Mostly

Are forces that destroy other places of worship, churches, for instance, or mosques, also non-Indic?

Depends. For example, the at the time of the Goa inquisition, the Church Fathers used to take great delight in torturing people to death in the most gruesome manner - they used to hack of body parts bit by bit, until the only thing left of the poor Hindu was the head and torso. And they would take great pains to make sure that he did not die prematurely, the better to enjoy the torture. All this in front of the family of the Hindu. Now, if such a Church and its holy Fathers are destroyed, who can doubt that it would be an act of great merit?

Haven't you changed subjects abruptly? You were talking about forces, and in order to illustrate their depravity, you now talk about the individual Afzal Khan. Are the two the same, or is it a philosophical tenet to extend flexibly from the particular to the general without warning?

I'm sure Afzal Khan had many like-minded fellows in his forces, who saw nothing wrong with demolishing temples of Kaffirs.

My questions at point 3 were five in number, but your response seems to address only the first of those. It would be interesting to have your answers of the remaining questions, as it will clear up what you think Islamisation, or Islamicisation was, other than random conversions. If you feel your answers already given suffice, please say so.

The questions are mostly speculative, and the answer is adequate. Considering the history of Islam, from Morocco to Indonesia, what is observed is that populations tend to convert once political power is in Islamic hands. I am not aware of any case where a nation became an Islamic majority nation without political power, solely through grass-roots proselytization.

Thank you for your answers. They bear out clearly that your interest in the battle is nothing to do with military history, but is rooted in your world-view of Islam vs. Hinduism, and belongs to a different thread, a different forum, even. This kind of provocative answer can only lead to retaliatory responses from members of this forum who have strong views on Islam and its propagation, and who will be tempted to bring in regrettable incidents of contemporary violence. There is certainly not enough substance to justify a conclusion that a Maratha defeat at this battle would have meant further Islamicisation, as the process of Islamicisation was far advanced. Obviously your conclusions did not take into account a fact that is constantly repeated by historians, and is as constantly ignored by political propagandists, that the conversions to Islam of numbers of people in Kerala and in Bengal were peaceful, and occurred at very early dates, perhaps pre-dating any military activity even close to the borders of these regions, at the initial stages. It is also not clear why this should have stopped Islamicisation with the increasing influence of the Mughals in the Deccan, including with the establishment of the Nizamate of Hyderabad, which happened after this battle. The establishment of the Nawabs of the Carnatic and of Arcot also happened after this battle.

As far as the original reasons given by GodlessBastard for this being a signififcant battle are concerned, well within 600 years of this incident, there was the very strong kingdom of Vijaynagar, which exercised significant influence over sub-continental politics in its time. The rise of the Marathas need not be overplayed; they were a regional power, as much as any other, and there is a lot of speculative, what might have been kind of history centring around two facts: the Battle of Panipat III and the Anglo-Maratha Wars. Without Panipat III and without the Anglo-Maratha Wars, much might have been different; unfortunately for the speculations, these happened.

It is really not very persuasive to say that the Marathas began their political career at this point, and that this was therefore a decisive battle. The other remarks about Islamicisation are nothing but rank religious prejudice, a brand of Islamophobia which is surprising to encounter in a moderated forum.

 

[Joe Shearer]

siginificance is if Tipu had won
1. He would have at his disposal a very big war chest. Kerala was at that time like the oil fields of modern world. Arabs and British were fighting for the trade in Kerala and the feudal lords were rich from the gold brought by pepper trade.Are you sure about the commercial situation that you have described? The British were established largely on the other, east coast, and although they took the pepper trade and the general spices trade very seriously, and had established trade relations, they had to wait until they prevailed over the Dutch before really getting into Kerala.

Further, I would question the effectiveness or utility of his access to wealth. Money was not the problem. The Samoothiri was not impoverished, nor did he lack resources of any kind. His kingdom lacked any kind of industrial infrastructure, however, and the Portuguese beat him repeatedly, with only the occasional setback, because of this. So Tipu's access to additional wealth is unlikely to have kept away the British, or to have averted his defeat at the hands of a European organisation, leave alone the full state power of a European power.
2. The entire southern india would have come under islamic rule. I would have been a muslim. Hogwash. Large tracts of Tamil Nadu were outside the control of the Nawabs of Arcot and the Nawabs of the Carnatic. Even those that were under the control of these two never saw a complete conversion of its population from Hindu to Muslim, or, for that matter, under the British, to Christian. And while your personal religious status today is undoubtedly of spell-binding interest to everybody reading this forum, it is not historically particularly significant. I note that C. P. Ramaswamy Iyer survived as an Iyer even though his family lived under the Nawabs of Arcot.
3. He could have used this force against British and brought them to their defeat.Hyder was very close to expelling British.This is a ridiculous statement. This was Tipus chance had he not ventured out. Even after loosing half of his force and guns in Kerala ,the British won against Tipu after considerable struggle. There was a struggle only in the first war against Tipu; afterwards, it was all too one-sided.
4. And for sure it created a major social impact as masses flood and settled in south fearing the invasion which is visible even now. The major muslim dominated areas end near kodungalloor.You are referring to the migration from Malabar to Travancore?

just my few cents... If still not significant we can move on and discuss another one

The Battle of Talikota
One of the most fateful events in indian history was the battle of Talikota that occurred during the time of Ramaraya who was the de facto ruler of Vijayanagar. The shas gathered together their armies on the plains of Bijapur at the end of 1564 and built up an enormous Islamic horde of around 700,000 troops. This vast army started marching southwards with considerable speed. Ramaraya faced the situation calmly and on Vijayadashmi day 15th September 1564 asked his generals to prepare for an all out war with the Shahs. By December the Shahs reached Talikota, a fortified town near the Krishna river and declared holy war on the infidels. Ramaraya took all the right steps. He sent his brother Tirumala with a large force to prevent the Shahs from crossing the Krishna. He sent his other brother Venkatadri to defend the south bank of the Krishna and he himself came in next with the rest of the army to form the rear. The total armies appear to have been between 500,000 core troops, plus the mercenaries. The main chinks in the armies were the two divisions of a total of about 140,000 troops which belonged to Shah commanders who had been hired foolishly by Ramaraya after their eviction from Bijapur by the Sultan. These divisions were along with Ramaraya’s main divisions.

By December 29th 1564 the first battles broke out. Qutb Shah and Nizam Shah, who were great friends, decided to go on their own first and led their divisions to clash with Tirumala’s division. The army inflicted a huge defeat on the Shahs and the Sultans fled in disarray losing thousands of men in the encounter. The Sultans were shaken by this encounter and asked Adil Shah to forget previous arguments and stand by them for the intended counter-attack. The Sultans met secretly and decided that the only way to succeed was to resort to stratagem. Nizam Shah and Qutb Shah decided to parley with the mighty Raya who was now planning a massive counter-thrust into the Shah flanks. At the same time Adil Shah sent a false message to the commander that he wished to remain neutral. While this was going on messengers from the Sultans went to the Shah commanders in the Vijayanagaran army and appealed to their religious duty of Jihad and secured their alliance to launch a subversive attack. As a result of these parleys Ramaraya delayed his counter-thrust giving a small but critical time window for the Shahs to regroup. Sultan Imad Shah of Berar made the first thrust by attacking Tirumala’s division guarding the Krishna ford. Tirumala fell upon him with his full force and in short but intense encounter destroyed the Sultan’s army and sent him flying for life. However, the euphoria of this victory proved short-lived as the sultans Nizam Shah, Qutb Shah, Barid Shah on one side and Adil Shah on the other used this distraction to cross the Krishna and attack the main divisions. This crossing was very similar to what alexander did. The one side of the bank was covered by elephants so the enemy basically played same trick as alexander did.They walked along the river for 3 days and then suddenly crossed when the rayas were resting.


Ramaraya, though thoroughly surprised, rapidly responded. Despite his advanced age (in the 70s) he decided to personally lead the armies and took to the field in the center. He was faced by Nizam Shah’s division. Ramaraya’s first brother Tirumala hurriedly returned to form the left wing of the army that was countered by Adil Shah and traitorous s under the Maharatta chief Raja Ghorpade. His second brother Venkatadri formed the right wing that was opposed by Qutb Shah and Barid Shah, strengthened by Nizam Shah’s auxiliaries as the battle progressed. On 23rd Jan 1565 the enormous armies clashed on the plains near the villages of Rakshasi and Tangadi. Several reports claimed that over a million men were involved in this historic clash. Venkatadri struck early and within the first two hours the right wing’s heavy guns fired constantly on the ranks of Barid Shah. As the ranks were softened the infantry under Venkatadri plowed through the divisions of Barid Shah annihilating them. The assault was so vigorous that it looked like a victory was imminent. Qutb Shah too was in retreat, when Nizam Shah sent his forces to shore up the ranks of the Sultans. Nizam Shah himself was then pressed hard by the heavy cannonade from Ramaraya’s division and was facing a infantry thrust with Ramaraya at the helm. At this point the Sultans signaled to the Shah officers in the Vijayanagaran army to launch a subversive attack. Suddenly Ramaraya found his rear surprised by the two Shah divisions in his ranks turning against him. About 140,000 Shah troops had opened a vigorous rear attack and captured several artillery positions. The Shah divisions even discharged bags of copper coins to cause confusion. Several cannon shells landed near Ramaraya’s elephant and he fell from it as his mount was struck by a cannon shard. Ramaraya tried to recover but Nizam Shah made a dash to seize him.

He was dragged to the Shah camp and the Sultan asked him to acknowledge Allah as the only god. Ramaraya instead cried “Narayana Krishna Bhagavanta”, and Nizam Shah slit the king’s throat and declared himself a Ghazi in Jihad. Ramaraya’s severed head was then fixed to a pole and waved before the troops. The s panicked at the death of their commander and chaos broke out in their midst. Venkatadri was also killed as the Qutb, Nizam and Barid put all their forces together and launched a concerted punch. Tirumala tried to stiffen the center but at that point the whole division of Adil Shah that was waiting all the while made the final assault on the rear of Tirumala’s division. The Vijayanagar artillery had by then been exhausted and was blasted by the Adil Shah’s artillery and the s faced a rout. Several 100,000s of troops were slain.

Tirumala seeing the total rout fled to Vijayanagara and taking up the treasury on 1500 elephants fled south towards Penukonda. Those who could flee the city survived, the rest became victims of the Islamic Jihad. The Shahs swooped down upon the city and beheaded several tens of thousands of the male inhabitants as they could find (“every one became a ghazi by killing a Kaffr&#8221. The young women were captured for the harems and the rest were herded into groups and burnt alive. Miscellaneous dacoits, Maharatta brigands under Raja Ghorpade Bahadur, and the Maharashtrian Brahmin thief, Murari Rao, who got wind of the news also arrived with their henchmen and looted the grand city. The looting is supposed to have gone on for six months, after which the sultans fired the city. The heat from the burning of the city is supposed to have been so intense that it left cracks in the granite hills on its periphery. Ramaraya’s skull was taken by Nizam Shah to Ahmednagar and was fitted to the spout of a drain that opened out of the fort. This grotesque gargoyle bearing the fallen king’s skull was seen for several years after the event

Which sources have you used for this account?

3. More details are here:TIPU SULTAN - VILLAIN OR HERO? I agree that there were muslims in kerala .People used to convert to islam especially servants of muslim households when they saw the better treatment they had compared to hindu elite who used to call out to keep them away. THe muslim mosques were given land by Hindu Kings and enjoyed heavy trading rights and also lead the navy of Zamorin.
This structure broke down when hyder and Tipu came down , the native muslims got a sense of power and did lot of atrocities in Tipus name. Essentially caused hindu population to flee their land and properties to travancore. Thus muslims became dominant religion of the Malabar with hindus becoming a minority in those areas. More on this will turn the thread to religions discussion i feel.

2. Zamorin had fought several naval wars with portugese almost keeping them at bay till 1600 when he killed his own muslim admiral kunjali marakkar. That i think makes more sense in the discussion of Battle of Diu.
But this battle was around 150 years later . Zamorin of this time commited suicide when hyders soldiers rushed in to calicut.
On a fun note: Calicut was named Islamabad by Tipu .

This is not about Tipu Sultan, but about significant battles.

There are some more south indian battles
1. veluthampi+Paliyath achans vs british( land war+first revolt of armed forces against British )
2. Tipu vs British srirangapattanam(land plus minimal navy)
3. The veerapandya kattabomman vs British(land)
4. pazhassi raja vs British. (jungle )
5. Kunjali marakkar vs Portugese (naval)

which are pretty important for us south indians.

If they are, and there is no reason to doubt it, why don't you start a thread calling it the most significant battles of south India? Remember not to use Wikipedia as a source.

A general request. Please don't use Wikipedia as a source and then get offended when the information is shown to be speculative or fabricated or drawn from legends or folk-tales. Please don't use Wikipedia, period. Its entries are seldom academically evaluated by peers, and it is increasingly misused to spread propaganda.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Thank you for your answers. They bear out clearly that your interest in the battle is nothing to do with military history, but is rooted in your world-view of Islam vs. Hinduism, and belongs to a different thread, a different forum, even.

Actually I'm interested in Adharma vs Dharma, in a broad philosophical sense.

There is certainly not enough substance to justify a conclusion that a Maratha defeat at this battle would have meant further Islamicisation, as the process of Islamicisation was far advanced.

Process of Islamization was far advanced? Some Muslims would regard India as a place where Islam attained only limited success.

Obviously your conclusions did not take into account a fact that is constantly repeated by historians, and is as constantly ignored by political propagandists, that the conversions to Islam of numbers of people in Kerala and in Bengal were peaceful, and occurred at very early dates, perhaps pre-dating any military activity even close to the borders of these regions, at the initial stages.

The attainment of Islamic majority status always went together with political power being in Islamic hands.

It is really not very persuasive to say that the Marathas began their political career at this point, and that this was therefore a decisive battle.

Actually this may be partly valid. There were many instances in which the survival of the Marathas hung by a slender thread ... the seige at Panhala, Shivaji's imprisonment at Agra.

The other remarks about Islamicisation are nothing but rank religious prejudice, a brand of Islamophobia which is surprising to encounter in a moderated forum.

This is astonishing. Some people are wont to raise a hue and cry whenever uncomfortable truths are discussed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Regrettably, from the evidence of your writings and your equations, your broad philosophical interest in Adharma vs. Dharma reduces to a limited and extremely bigoted reduction of the question to the identification of at least Islam and Christianity as Adharma, without even an ameliorative attempt to indicate that there are exceptions of Adharma within both these religions, and the identification of Hinduism, or Sanatan Dharma as Dharma, equally without an effort to indicate that there are exceptions to this, too.

Again, from your posts, it looks like your effort is to discover in any and every discussion some negative points about Islam, failing which, Christianity, and a direct and pointed comparison with Hinduism, represented as entirely positive.

Why is it difficult for you to understand that bringing religious questions and nuances into every discussion, including those on military matters, represents an extreme form of intolerance, in this case, intolerance of the religious beliefs of others? Why are you on this forum at all, if you do not have an open mind on religious matters, since you can only oppose anything and everything said by a Pakistani on first principles?

Thank you for your answers. They bear out clearly that your interest in the battle is nothing to do with military history, but is rooted in your world-view of Islam vs. Hinduism, and belongs to a different thread, a different forum, even.

Actually I'm interested in Adharma vs Dharma, in a broad philosophical sense.

This has already been seen to be a tawdry, thinly-veiled Islamophobic stance represented, falsely, as a philosophical quest.

There is certainly not enough substance to justify a conclusion that a Maratha defeat at this battle would have meant further Islamicisation, as the process of Islamicisation was far advanced.

Process of Islamization was far advanced? Some Muslims would regard India as a place where Islam attained only limited success.

Rather than quoting unnamed Muslims, who conveniently state things in a manner that allow you considerable play with the seeming unreasonableness of those whom you oppose, you might try comparing numbers.

You might try comparing the number of Muslims - today - on the sub-continent, which presumably represents the achievement of 1,200 years, with the number of Hindus, representing these 1,200 years and a previous 2,200 years, with the number of Buddhists, attacked by Hindus from 800 AD onwards, that is, for the last 1,200 years again.

From about the same time, Muslims - according to your binary vision - oppressed Hindus and converted a certain number, leaving behind a number of Hindus; and Hindus oppressed Buddhists, in spite of their being Indic as well, and reduced their numbers to almost nothing.

It is curious that you see the dreadful cruelty and oppression in one side of the equation, but the other escapes you totally.

Obviously your conclusions did not take into account a fact that is constantly repeated by historians, and is as constantly ignored by political propagandists, that the conversions to Islam of numbers of people in Kerala and in Bengal were peaceful, and occurred at very early dates, perhaps pre-dating any military activity even close to the borders of these regions, at the initial stages.

The attainment of Islamic majority status always went together with political power being in Islamic hands.

What Islamic majority status has to do with voluntary acceptance of Islam is not clear, and in any case, your statement is invalided by the cases of Bengal and Indonesia, to name no others.

It is really not very persuasive to say that the Marathas began their political career at this point, and that this was therefore a decisive battle.

Actually this may be partly valid. There were many instances in which the survival of the Marathas hung by a slender thread ... the seige at Panhala, Shivaji's imprisonment at Agra.

It is not the survival of the Marathas, but their coming into being as a political power that is in question. That coming into being was not a significant event; their successes were. Many other minor powers came into being or were in being, without being successful; they were hardly capable of delivering anything of significance. Very simply, only those battles which promoted the Maratha cause to an extent where they made a difference at the Indian level are of any significance.

The other remarks about Islamicisation are nothing but rank religious prejudice, a brand of Islamophobia which is surprising to encounter in a moderated forum.

This is astonishing. Some people are wont to raise a hue and cry whenever uncomfortable truths are discussed.

I suggest that it will be difficult for you to explain what uncomfortable truths exist to raise a hue and cry about. I found no truths in your statement, so the question of finding them uncomfortable does not arise.

If you have a problem with people of Islamic belief, it is not possible for you to engage in a rational discussion with them, as it is already from the outset not an available option for you to agree with them on any point. In which case, what are you doing here?

 

[Srinivas]

self delete

 

[Srinivas]

Very valid point baker. There are many such battles which we miss which could have turned the history into another way. The middle east and Arabia is split into so many countries just because they had so many different colonial powers ruling them. Same with Africa. By fortune or design India escaped that tragedy. We were lucky to have a single master and the master being the world super power of the time. Other wise we would be like mexico speaking some latino language as third language which is totally fine by me, but we would have trouble even getting the mediocre science and technology we have today. Imagine Indians speaking Dutch as their second or third language . What a tragedy that would have been!

Why would we need a super power to rule us when india itself is the richest in wealth,culture and heritage?
The science and tech ur talking can be learned through interaction with british just like we became software super power through learning. The only good british brought to india is uniting us.
India should have become far more superior than now if the looting was not done by those culturally moron british.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Regrettably, from the evidence of your writings and your equations, your broad philosophical interest in Adharma vs. Dharma reduces to a limited and extremely bigoted reduction of the question to the identification of at least Islam and Christianity as Adharma ...

Your post is full of strawmen, which I will not bother responding to.

But anyway, one point:

What Islamic majority status has to do with voluntary acceptance of Islam is not clear, and in any case, your statement is invalided by the cases of Bengal and Indonesia, to name no others.

Bengal did not become an Islamic majority area before the brutal depredations of Bakhtiar Khilji; you could also read up on Islamic political power in the Indonesian archipelago.

 

[lkozhi]

1. Which sources have you used for this account?
I guess you are thinking i use wikipedia. I do search but generally choose google books and select books with preview. I dont completely ignore wiki because sometimes they have good referrences at the bottom referrence link.

But for this one i found an internet article(not wiki) interesting. This one had heavy religious referrences but lot of details to military tactics used in the battle.So i went about deleting religious referrence as much as i could and posted it. That is why u may see some sentences which are dramatic. But It did not deviate much from the google books referrence.
internet source:
Battle of Talikota | Indian Realist
google source:
The History of India from the ... - Google Books

2. This is not about Tipu Sultan, but about significant battles.
Agreed. I was responding to point out a slight difference of opinion i had on this regard. That is why i posted only the link not content.
we have special affection for Tipu. Even now we name our dogs Tipu.

Regarding CP , even tipu had a hindu minister. They were necessary for administration and even muslim rulers acknoledge that. CP was one of our best dewans who started most of the industries we have. But he was pompous and wanted to start his own country of Kerala which in reality would have been much better for us. He could have become viceroy if not for being south indian.

3. Regarding the dutch influence. See battle of kolachel. It ended by 1758 and was more of a friendly trade partner . Tipus attack came much later.

The Dutch power in Kerala, 1729-1758 - Google Books
malabar manual is also nice read it is in google books.

4. I was referring to flood of hindus from malabar to travancore.
5. Regarding industry zamorin had italians making guns for him.
Historic Alleys: The Zamorin’s Italian mercenaries
The situation changed after death of the two great kings of zamorin and travancore at 1750s. It was the coorgis help that turned the tide for British. Tipu went and harassed the wrong set of people in his time and he brought all their wrath up on him on his own.

You may find what i posted on hyder ridiculous. But I suggest you read on him .

 

[KS]

From about the same time, Muslims - according to your binary vision - oppressed Hindus and converted a certain number, leaving behind a number of Hindus; and Hindus oppressed Buddhists, in spite of their being Indic as well, and reduced their numbers to almost nothing.

I dont want to go on a tangent - but a quick note. There have been many cases of violence on Hindus by Samana (Jain) and Bouddha (Buddhist) inspired kings in the history of Tamil Nadu specially during the Pallava rule.

They are mentioned in stone inscriptions and will try to paste them here after rummaging through my pictures. But mostly the Hindu 'oppresion' of Buddhists is a very tenuous claim given that the Hindu revival was mostly though the public debates of Shankaracharya and the general populace's growing discontent with the Buddhist monks who had veered away from the teachings of Buddha and were becoming a power onto themselves.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your post is full of strawmen, which I will not bother responding to.

But anyway, one point:


Bengal did not become an Islamic majority area before the brutal depredations of Bakhtiar Khilji; you could also read up on Islamic political power in the Indonesian archipelago.

You are wrong on both counts. Straw men are artificial arguments set up by your opponent and then demolished by him and the result displayed as a defeat of yourself. Such straw men arguments are easy to identify and to counter; you only have to point out what views have been wrongly assigned to you, and deny them, and that does the trick. Quite easy, unless unfortunately you do happen to hold those beliefs and are unable to contradict their being ascribed to you.

On the second, having studied the history of Bengal particularly deeply, I beg leave to inform you that the conversion of east Bengal in particular, the part of Bengal which contained the most people, long pre-dated Bakhtiar Khalji's advent, and were occasioned by merchants from Arabia who preached the new faith.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I dont want to go on a tangent - but a quick note. There have been many cases of violence on Hindus by Samana (Jain) and Bouddha (Buddhist) inspired kings in the history of Tamil Nadu specially during the Pallava rule.

They are mentioned in stone inscriptions and will try to paste them here after rummaging through my pictures. But mostly the Hindu 'oppresion' of Buddhists is a very tenuous claim given that the Hindu revival was mostly though the public debates of Shankaracharya and the general populace's growing discontent with the Buddhist monks who had veered away from the teachings of Buddha and were becoming a power onto themselves.

I am more than happy to adopt your explanation for the purposes of this argument, even though I do not particularly agree with it, on the grounds that the reciprocity of violence between Buddhist and Hindu is more than likely. However, going by your own argument, it would seem that the supposedly violent conversion of the Muslims achieved fewer converts than the non-violent conversion of the Hindus achieved among the majority or nearly equal numbers of Buddhists.

That would seem to illustrate that the violent methods that are so strongly condemned were not very violent after all, if we are to go by the results in terms of converted numbers.

To revert to the historical point, you need to read up on the activities of the Sena kings of Bengal, and their efforts against the Buddhists; ironically, this dynasty was founded by a prince wandering up from Karnataka and grabbing power in Bengal using the usual scrupulous, ethical methods that most dynasts use in setting up their authority in the first place.

 

[lkozhi]

I dont want to go on a tangent - but a quick note. There have been many cases of violence on Hindus by Samana (Jain) and Bouddha (Buddhist) inspired kings in the history of Tamil Nadu specially during the Pallava rule.

They are mentioned in stone inscriptions and will try to paste them here after rummaging through my pictures. But mostly the Hindu 'oppresion' of Buddhists is a very tenuous claim given that the Hindu revival was mostly though the public debates of Shankaracharya and the general populace's growing discontent with the Buddhist monks who had veered away from the teachings of Buddha and were becoming a power onto themselves.

I humbly request you to post it in seperate thread not in miltary history. I suggest you post about a war which was significant in the list given or some thing you know of.
we are going off topic...