TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[vsdoc]

Persecution of Parsis?
Now are we just making up history?
since we are, I want to add the persecution of Yaks by the Buddha.

The parsis came to India before Islam arrived in Iran.
Their own books say that they came to India via trade routs and settled there.

I know you really hate Muslims and Islam but c'mon man, no need to just make stuff up.

He meant persecution of the Persians - Zoroastrians.

Not that the Parsis did not have a relatively minor (in comparison) runin with Aurangzeb in India as well much later.

You are not only deluded, you are brainwashed.

Not to mention a product of 65 years of revisionist subliminal mass programming.

 

[Rusty]

Are you kidding me, Do you even know how to conclude the discussion?

I am trying to debunk your myths.

Well you are doing a terrible job at it so far.
You should check out some of Noam Chomskies books on linguistics.
They might help you understand what you are arguing against.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Both ANIs (Ancestral North Indians) and ASIs (Ancestral South Indians) have been in the subcontinent and influencing each other for many millenia BCE.

Yes this may be very possible. As the physical traits of North Indians do not match with Central Asians.

 

[Rusty]

He meant persecution of the Persians - Zoroastrians.

Not that the Parsis did not have a relatively minor (in comparison) runin with Aurangzeb in India as well much later.

You are not only deluded, you are brainwashed.

Not to mention a product of 65 years of revisionist subliminal mass programming.

Care to cite evidence of where Persians were persecuted?
The Persians were actually highly prized by Muslims for their advanced technology and civilization.

And oh no, you are really hurting my feeling with all those bad bad words. Maybe I should share my feeling with everyone and pretend that feelings= facts.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Well you are doing a terrible job at it so far.
You should check out some of Noam Chomskies books on linguistics.
They might help you understand what you are arguing against.

Language alone cannot determine history and you are quoting a US Stooge.

 

[Joe Shearer]

so do you say prithviraj never won the first battle of tarain and he never let go of ghauri...?

On the contrary. Prithviraj Chauhan won the first battle of Tarain. Muhammad Ghori, or Ghauri, was injured and managed to flee with the aid of his aides. There was no capture, no royal pardon. Those were romantic depictions of a defeat, which allowed a few survivors, in poetic license, a battle where the losing side retained a few survivors because they were pardoned by the winning side.

This is the kind of disinformation which arises from taking court bards and their gush too seriously.

 

[vsdoc]

I don't particularly like challenging people, Doc; I'm a very peaceful, bespectacled, more than a little overweight, vegetarian Bong.. How much more harmless can you get than that?

If you bother to look along north India, up to the Meghalaya hills, the Jaintia and Khasi Hills that were, you will find a variety of languages descended from Prakrit - middle Prakrit, either Sauraseni or Ardhamagadhi - spoken. But under their shadow, there are a very distinct family of obviously older languages, the adivasi languages. Very simply, Mundari and Khasi languages contributed to the overlying Indo-Aryan languages, and hence are seen as being older. These are the evidence of a huge and brutal civilisational war that is still being fought in India; the good side isn't winning.

When we tend to whine about the brutality and savage nature of the Turks and Afghans who swept into India from the end of the first millennium onwards, we tend to lose ourselves in abundant self-pity. We tend to look at all the damage that has been done by Muslim invaders and their heirs and assignees, and tend to lose sight of what we are doing, currently, to an older race. You might like to see for yourself, and ponder things over.

Adivasi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Indo-Aryan speaking tribes tore apart the adivasi culture, tore apart their settlements, enslaved them and trod them underfoot in a system which soars far beyond the most pleasurable dreams of the Cape Dutch, shoved a religion down their throats, raped countless generations of their women and destroyed their sacred places. The descendants of these exemplary conquistadors then raise a quavering voice of outrage at the equally unspeakable behaviour of the Muslim invaders. There is little to choose between the two sets.

Don't, for pity's sake, shove Iran and Zoroastrianism in my face; I am feeling quite fragile. The fact is that there was no comparable situation in Eran; it was tabula rasa, and your ancestors took to it with yips of delight. No elephant in the Persian room, not about your autochthones. None at all.

I absolutely agree with you here.

Happily for me, if it makes you feel better, I come from the line that had issues with these a little earlier (500 to a 1000 years give or take) as well.

Does that absolve me? I really do not know, for the immediate line in India to which I belong came as beleaguered refugees in peace and trouble 8-10,000 years later.

Does that mean my "Islamophobia" is ironic?

Not at all.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No you are wrong the first battle of Tarain was a bitter defeat for MD.Ghouri



Prithvi Raj Chauhan is a pride and able king who has a potent army enough to eliminate foreign barbaric enemy.

I didn't say anything different.

I was referring to the First Battle of Tarain - a victory - and the Second Battle of Tarain - a defeat.

Read a little carefully, and go easy on the masala.

 

[Rig Vedic]

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

Vishnu Purana (4th century AD)

 

[Hellraiser007]

On the contrary. Prithviraj Chauhan won the first battle of Tarain. Muhammad Ghori, or Ghauri, was injured and managed to flee with the aid of his aides. There was no capture, no royal pardon. Those were romantic depictions of a defeat, which allowed a few survivors, in poetic license, a battle where the losing side retained a few survivors because they were pardoned by the winning side.

This is the kind of disinformation which arises from taking court bards and their gush too seriously.

There are always some distortions in History Even the Alexanders Invasions and achievements are distorted and written in his favour. The truth is Prithvi routed Ghori.

 

[Joe Shearer]

ok..i'll rephrase that question...the decision not to take partition to its logical extension...

I question that. This was never in consideration.

Thinking about it sixty five years is singularly futile, you will agree.

 

[Hellraiser007]

I didn't say anything different.

I was referring to the First Battle of Tarain - a victory - and the Second Battle of Tarain - a defeat.

Read a little carefully, and go easy on the masala.

Fate played on Prithvi and this loss changed Indian sub continent direction.

 

[Rusty]

Language alone cannot determine history and you are quoting a US Stooge.

so what in your mind can determine history?
The vedas?
hate to break it to you but they are language too

I know that Indian minds work on "feeling=facts" but in the real world that is not how things work. We need evidence to belive what we believe and in the case of Aryans, we have tremendous amount of evidence in the form of linguistics.

And you want to discredit one of the leading scholars who pioneered an entire field by calling him a stooge?

You clearly have no idea what you are taking about, and frankly I find your anti intellectualism disturbing.
No one got anywhere by killing the messenger and burring their head in the sand.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Like most of history, in fact all of science, we cannot say for 100% about anything. only fools speak in absolutes.

however, there is a tremendous amount of evidence for the Aryans, who came from central Asia and spread to India and Europe.
The strongest evidence is linguistic.
Linguistic evidence shows that all the Indo-European languages are connected and had a single origin. There is also archaeological evidence, such as similar style of housing made and tools used.
Interestingly enough, the chariot was never mentioned in India until the Aryans arrived. This strongly points to again, an Aryan invasion.

<groan>

No, NO, NO!

Aryan is not, was not an ethnic group. People spoke Indo-Aryan, while they were in their persons a mixture of a wide range of blood-stock.

You are referring to the Indo-Aryan speaking tribes, not to Indo-Aryan tribes.

 

[Rig Vedic]

The Indo-Aryan speaking tribes tore apart the adivasi culture, tore apart their settlements, enslaved them and trod them underfoot in a system which soars far beyond the most pleasurable dreams of the Cape Dutch, shoved a religion down their throats, raped countless generations of their women and destroyed their sacred places. The descendants of these exemplary conquistadors then raise a quavering voice of outrage at the equally unspeakable behaviour of the Muslim invaders. There is little to choose between the two sets.

Don't, for pity's sake, shove Iran and Zoroastrianism in my face; I am feeling quite fragile. The fact is that there was no comparable situation in Eran; it was tabula rasa, and your ancestors took to it with yips of delight. No elephant in the Persian room, not about your autochthones. None at all.

Sigh ... DNA studies show that the Sanskritic peoples are as Adivasi as anybody else.