What's new

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

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.
I had serious doubts that even the OP of that thread had read it. Oops! Hes gonna kill me for this one. :hang3:
The title of that article was misleading....or so I think.
scorpionx said:
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.
Right!
I have every liberty to hold what I think is a more cogent view.I am definitely not going to get influenced by Richard Eaton.But his work does prove that conversion to islam had many reasons and it changed with the region.
I still hold it true that Butshikan was responsible for conversion in Kashmir.But that may not be true for Bengal and early punjab regions.
scorpionx said:
I agree, Superman.
He thinks you,me and other seculars are also leftists. Kyun @Dem!god?? :P

Off topic:
Are you a leftist or a mugwump like me??
 
Never expected this from you..:o:


Why ? Whole lot of Sultans have a recorded history of being infidel slayer and Iconoclast.

I luv surprising ppl or shock as in this case :devil::devil::devil:


You should stand for your beliefs, if they are true. Backing down at slightest hint of resistance shows a profound lack of character.



This type of analysis are the reason that i believe that anything Left advocates should be treated a fruit of poisonous tree; evil by association.

The whole analysis hinges on a preposterous assumption that somehow Pakistan and Bengal were fringe areas of Islamic empire. This not only shows ignorance of history on part of author, but also his lack of grip on sociology and psychology.

The author conveniently forget that Pakistan and Bengal had been under Islamic rule for longest period of time than any other portion. Pakistani Punjab has seen Islamic rule for 1200 years, while in Bengal, Islamic rule has been pretty much unbroken.

In contrast to that,Islamic rule in Gangetic plains never really solidified. During sultanate era, 20 years of stable rule were followed by 20 years of Sultanate being shrinked to Delhi only.Rajputs use to go toe-to-toe with Sultans and sometime( during late sultanate, everytime) even prevailed upon them.Even Khap panchayats were able to raise an Army stronger than imperial Army during invasion of Taimur lang.During Mughal time, the very survival of Mughals depended upon co-operation of Rajputs.
This meant that political power of Islam in this area was limited by extraneous factors.

It ignores the basic Psychology of a human being. A Multani, who was living under Islamic yoke since Bin Qasim has no hope of improving his situation. He has been ruled by Muslims for as long as institutional memory of his caste goes. He had no hope. With Hindu emperors busy in fighting over Kannauj, they were not coming to his rescue. He was under unbearable burden of Jiziya, which he could discharge by becoming a muslim.

This man is more probable of becoming a muslim than someone from Gangetic plain where he was autonomous everywhere except in cities like Agra and Delhi. Where he could see hindu kingdoms just across the river and over the hill. Where ruler did not use to go full retard in fear that it would open him up for invasion or cause migration of population to his opponents kingdom ( before medical revolution, population use to be pretty low). Where he saw that Sultans self combusting after every 20-30 years

In short a Pakistani or Bangladeshi were defeated at much deeper level than military one. They had lost all hope.The very act of militaristic defiance by neighboring hindu rulers ensured that people do not lose hope and checked lunacy of Sultans.


Did this author knew the rate of Jiziya imposed on Kuffar? He probably did but ignored it in order to forward his PoV.

Jaziya was imposed at rate of 3 tola of Silver per year/per head. This is a significant amount even today, a day when silver prices have crashed due to excessive silver mining done by Spanish in Peru and Chile which caused a glut and crashed Silver prices.
 
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.


It's a civilization, a group of common peoples.. Doesnt need to be a modern country.
 
Are you a leftist or a mugwump like me??
Politics is a dirty game. I prefer to remain a neutral as far as politics is concerned. (See the black money issue for example.) On history, I don't think there could be anything left or right. Which ever looks more reasonable,I walk that way.


He thinks you,me and other seculars are also leftists.

Most Indians here believe that anything that is not "right" is necessarily has to be left. I don't blame them though.
 
Politics is a dirty game. I prefer to remain a neutral as far as politics is concerned. (See the black money issue for example.) On history, I don't think there could be anything left or right. Which ever looks more reasonable,I walk that way.
Hence proved you're a mugwump too.
Is there a better word?? :rolleyes:

Ahh blacj money reminds me that there should be a thread where govt got a tight slap from SC.
 
Hence proved you're a mugwump too.
Is there a better word?? :rolleyes:

Ahh blacj money reminds me that there should be a thread where govt got a tight slap from SC.
Mugwump though sounds funny but correctly describes it. And a thread is already running on BM issue there.

@temp1994

Eaton is a history scholar. You may disagree with him but assuming him having no idea in Islamic history of India which he is researching for 25 years is a bit little over.
 
Mugwump though sounds funny but correctly describes it. And a thread is already running on BM issue there.

@temp1994

Eaton is a history scholar. You may disagree with him but assuming him having no idea in Islamic history of India which he is researching for 25 years is a bit little over.


History scholars are not scientists. They are glorified propagandist who seek to forward their point of view with their interpretations.

My accusing him of being ignorant of Islamic history arises from his assertion that Pakistan and Bengal was not part of core Islamic civilization, an assertion on which his whole thesis is based. This is downright dishonest.

And i used word "ignorant" for him. That ignorance may stem from not knowing fact or ideologically motivated selective blindness.
 
My accusing him of being ignorant of Islamic history arises from his assertion that Pakistan and Bengal was not part of core Islamic civilization, an assertion on which his whole thesis is based. This is downright dishonest.
Did he say that North west and Bengal was not part of core Islamic civilization? I thought he said these two areas stand on the extreme periphery of Islamic state in India.
 
Did he say that North west and Bengal was not part of core Islamic civilization? I thought he said these two areas stand on the extreme periphery of Islamic state in India.

So Brother what do you do for a living ? :)
 
Did he say that North west and Bengal was not part of core Islamic civilization? I thought he said these two areas stand on the extreme periphery of Islamic state in India.


And the fact that they were under uninterrupted muslim rule, with Pakistan being under Islamic rule for thrice as long as India, proves point opposite to what author is implying.

He is dishonest in basing his theory of peaceful conversion on fact that Pakistan and Bangladesh have highest population of muslims ,and using that as an argument that Islamic population is inversely proportional to distance from political center of Islamic empire. He deliberately confuses locus of Political power of muslim kings with locus of political power of Islam. If India shifts it's capital to Tawang, Arunanchal would not become center of Indian civilization.

The fact used by author to dismiss Sword conversion is exactly opposite of what that fact proves.What his fact about population distribution proves is that percentage of Muslims in India was and is directly proportional to time for which a piece of land was held by muslim rulers.It points to coercive conversions rather than opposite.

Why is it that Pakistan which never had a non-Muslim ruler after Dahir and before Ranjit Singh for 1200 years is 99% muslim, while Orrisa where Islamic rule was very weak and lasted for close to just 100 years is 2% muslim.

This also proves "prefrentially non pastoral forest people converting to Islam" theory propounded by @levina , wrong. If this was the way things occurred, Chattisgarh and Orrisa should be having largest population of Muslims in India.

The fact that Islam never took roots in a place where it did not had political power. This points proves sword theory ( coercive conversion) rather than opposite.
 
Last edited:
I had serious doubts that even the OP of that thread had read it. Oops! Hes gonna kill me for this one. :hang3:
The title of that article was misleading....or so I think.

Right!
I have every liberty to hold what I think is a more cogent view.I am definitely not going to get influenced by Richard Eaton.But his work does prove that conversion to islam had many reasons and it changed with the region.
I still hold it true that Butshikan was responsible for conversion in Kashmir.But that may not be true for Bengal and early punjab regions.

He thinks you,me and other seculars are also leftists. Kyun @Dem!god?? :P

Off topic:
Are you a leftist or a mugwump like me??
i.think u and dada need to know what leftist means and how they are similar/ dissimilar to ur thinking...
try it .. u will be surprised..

i am certainly not a leftist... but trying to.become a RSS member...:-)
 
Mugwump though sounds funny but correctly describes it.
It is funny. :lol:

scorpionx said:
And a thread is already running on BM issue there.
BM means something else on indusladies...you just confused me. :P




History scholars are not scientists. They are glorified propagandist who seek to forward their point of view with their interpretations.

My accusing him of being ignorant of Islamic history arises from his assertion that Pakistan and Bengal was not part of core Islamic civilization, an assertion on which his whole thesis is based. This is downright dishonest.

And i used word "ignorant" for him. That ignorance may stem from not knowing fact or ideologically motivated selective blindness.
Oh come now!
As I said what you think cogent might not be so for historians.
And whats about the propaganda?
He gave us few more reasons to why mass conversion took place in punjab and bengal. Take or leave it...now thats on us.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom