Which Indian King/Historical event is most under appreciated in Indian History?

[SarthakGanguly]

It would mean little whether Sikander himself was a sufi or not.

It means little to you, I agree. Most Indians know only one Sikander - Alexander the Great. Never mind.

 

[Lord ZeN]

Yes Butshikan was responsible for the islamization of kashmir...I think I've posted the same earlier on this thread.
And I do believe that atleast half the population of muslims that exists in India today are muslims because they were forcibly converted at some point of time.

Never expected this from you..

 

[Levina]

Never expected this from you..

I luv surprising ppl or shock as in this case

 

[scorpionx]

And I do believe that atleast half the population of muslims that exists in India today are muslims because they were forcibly converted at some point of time.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/sj6/eatonapproachconversion.pdf

 

[SpArK]

The only time in Indian history, an Indian kingdom defeated a European naval force.

Battle of Colachel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Levina]

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/sj6/eatonapproachconversion.pdf

I hate you for giving me 10 pages to read...


This sums it up...
1. one important reason that Islam sank such deep roots in areas such as East Bengal or West Punjab was that the native populations of those regions were far less integrated into the literate tradition of the Brahmans than were the ppl of upper India.

2. The agent of conversion that has received the most attention is the Sufi.
a deceased Sufi, especially one blessed with
sainthood by the local population, could literally work miracles.And since brick and mortar shrines have much greater longevity than flesh and bone Sufis self-sustaining centers of religious power were able in this way to grow and span many centuries.

3. India's most extensive conversion occurred not in the great agricultural plains in the pastoral plains or forested regions—areas, in other words where religious patterns had not yet been stabilized by literacy as represented and sustained by Brahmans. For it was not Hindus who most readily converted to Islam, but nonagrarian forest or pastoral peoples whose contact with Brahmanism and caste stratification had been either casual or nonexistent.The process of the absorption of these peoples into Islam was, in fact, similar to the integration of aboriginal peoples into the Hindu caste and ritual structure that had taken place earlier in Indian history.
4. In areas where local Hindu rajahs had already established an agrarian infrastructure by which to extract the surplus wealth of the land, the problem was a political one.
5. the appearance of huge Sufi shrines such as those of Farid al-Din Shakargunj in Pakpattan or Baha al-Haqq Zakaria in Multan, becoming the objects of popular devotion by non-Hindu Jat pastoralists as they migrated northward from Sind. By the sixteenth century the Mughal government realized the political potential of these shrines and used them as intermediaries by which to control the turbulent Jat groups.
6. In Bengal an essentially opposite process had the same effect instead of the people migrating to the land, the arable land migrated to them.In the sixteenth century the river ganga silted up its old channels and pushed eastward, opening up huge areas of East Bengal for rice cultivation. River shifts also made possible land reclamation along the lower and eastern delta next to the sea. As these riverine shifts occurred roughly simultaneously with the Mughal conquest of Bengal, many of the colonists moving into the east were Muslims from north India.

@scorpionx
Thanks for posting that link.It did bust many myths.


..

 

[Dem!god]

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/sj6/eatonapproachconversion.pdf

posting a leftist sicular version ain't gonna change the truth...

 

[scorpionx]

I hate you for giving me 10 pages to read

The reason I gave you the link was because not many people here have the patience to read a 10 page article; You, in the other thread in seniors cafe proved otherwise.

Thanks for posting that link.It did bust many myths.

Ok. There are thesis and counter thesis. Richard Eaton is considered to be the blue eyed boy of Indian secular liberals; however it does not make him necessarily correct. I suggest, not to believe him blindly but to appreciate the methodical way he has endeavored to analyze the conversion issue in medieval India.

posting a leftist sicular version ain't gonna change the truth...

I agree, Superman.

 

[Beidou2020]

There was no such thing as 'India' before the British.

Winston Churchill created 'India'.

 

[sree45]

There was no such thing as 'India' before the British.

Winston Churchill created 'India'.

but there was "BHARAT".

 

[scorpionx]

There was no such thing as 'India' before the British.

Winston Churchill created 'India'.

Ask your school to return all the money.

 

[Beidou2020]

but there was "BHARAT".

Nope.

Just made up on falsified maps by delusional Indians.

India is not a country, its a forced union which only came into existence by British colonisation.

 

[sree45]

Nope.

Just made up on falsified maps by delusional Indians.

Do you have any proof to back up you BS claim?

India is not a country, its a forced union which only came into existence by British colonisation.

Bharat is not a country, it's a civilization which was ruled by various kings.

When the British left, there were 100's of independent kingdoms, which joined the union at the will of their people. and Indians are not forced, they choose. Unlike you guys.

 

[Beidou2020]

Do you have any proof to back up you BS claim?



Bharat is not a country, it's a civilization which was ruled by various kings.

When the British left, there were 100's of independent kingdoms, which joined the union at the will of their people. and Indians are not forced, they choose. Unlike you guys.

There was no such thing as 'India'.

British colonised those little kingdoms and called it 'India".

Calling 'India' a country is like calling Africa a country

 

[sree45]

There was no such thing as 'India'.

British colonised those little kingdoms and called it 'India".

Calling 'India' a country is like calling Africa a country

Good for you. Delusional chinese.