What's new

Yogi Adityanath is surrounded by Muslims in his math

RSS-BJP IT cell is busy painting Rogi as the most secular Muslim loving pro-development CM. As usual, the cow urine drinkers can digest whatever being thrown out by the RSS IT propaganda cell. Rest, they must be knowing how the Infidel killers are glorified by the terrorists who are now in power.
 
. .
RSS-BJP IT cell is busy painting Rogi as the most secular Muslim loving pro-development CM. As usual, the cow urine drinkers can digest whatever being thrown out by the RSS IT propaganda cell. Rest, they must be knowing how the Infidel killers are glorified by the terrorists who are now in power.
listen noble thoughts of this goon here who is talking about taking laws in hand and is provoking others.

[video]
 
.
So going by your logic even Jr. Owaisi made speeches before elections yet won. So he is no different than those saffron zealots, yet you feel outraged over his statements while ignoring when others make similar statements.


Many Hindutva hatemongers made similar speeches which obviously threaten muslims which obviously pushes them towards radicals. Indeed I agree that most people are good but when the law of the land fails to punish those accused, people will turn to different means.

Do you know about Jammu massacre or Hyderabad police action where at least 50,000 muslims were killed and many others maimed, raped and looted? Nobody seems to bother about this..

Declassify report on the 1948 Hyderabad massacre

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatime...assify-report-on-the-1948-hyderabad-massacre/

The killing fields of Jammu: How Muslims become a minority in the region

https://scroll.in/article/811468/the-killing-fields-of-jammu-when-it-was-muslims-who-were-eliminated
Hindutva supporters can't be punished more than Akbar Owaisi. Let me put things into perspective, after the formation of Islamic state Pakistan, No one can blame Majority Hindus from Making India Hindu republic. Even today if 60% of population decides to make India a Hindu republic, no one on earth can question them. Constitution is not a magic power, majority mindset gives constitution its power and validity.

Stop spreading lies Pandit Sunder lal report estimates dead to 24000, other estimates are not proven and totally baseless. And most of the people killed were Radical Razakars and cruel zamindars. 90% of Hyderabad population was and is Hindu. Majority Hindu state was well inside Indian territory and not a border region like Kashmir. Now to maintain Nizam rule, Islamist Razakars under Kasim rizvi went on a murderous rampage of Hindus and Pro-India muslims. After Operation polo people poor farmers and other downtrodden rose up and took revenge against Razakars. This is the problem of people like you. You view things out of context to play victim cards. Most razakars deserved it.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...akars-brutality-reminisces/article5126155.ece
http://andhrajihad.blogspot.in/2010/03/have-telugu-speakers-forgotten-jihadi.html
Kasim rizvi would have killed 1 crore 40 lakh Hindus if he could and make Hyderabad a Islamic state. But Indian army was a battle-hardened and experienced in World War 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_II
Participation in World war 2 made India and its army this strong

Jammu region:
Jammu was always Hindu Majority, the so called killings were part of the partition riots. When Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan were killed and driven out. some of them came to Jammu region and exacted revenge. Again you put things out of context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres

What do you think about these Hindus who are cheering Yogi and his men when he speaks about killing muslims, raping dead muslim women? I don't see non-muslims not supporting these Hindutva goons.


:rofl::rofl: Says the terrorist who wants the muslims to be killed in hundreds.

17309356_1892845027640745_5520700266214243969_n.jpg
Again let me put things into context, Hindus where cheering Yogi when he said he would kill 100 muslims in revenge for killing 1 Hindu" . Yogi omitted the word kill, enraged people said kill. Yogi never said about raping muslim girls, that video is fake. Confrontation only makes Hindutwa stronger and stronger. All Owaisi achieved is create Raja Singh.
 
.
Confrontation only makes Hindutwa stronger and stronger. All Owaisi achieved is create Raja Singh.

If these sickulars keep going this way, the only parties that will win any elections in future are the ones that will pander to Hindus.
BJP will make sure of that.

All these talk of minority welfare is BS.
Does anyone realise that in J&K Hindus are 20% and are minority and do not get one minority benefit? All the money supposed to go to for Minority welfare in J&K is eaten away by Jihadi gang.
That's how much they are concerned about minority where they are majority.
It's time rest of India replicates J&K model and screw these Jihadis in reverse.
 
.
Let me correct that bold sentence of yours .
"well I have just one thing to say that is I am totally fucked up in this arguement ,nor I have reliable points and I am a bloody hypocrite that would stoop down to any level to become an apologists of Tipu Sultan'.

If you have the proofs to dispute the neutrality of the sources and authors , then show it ,post it ,man ,like a man.

You just dont need to go anywhere ,just look at the demography in Malabar
LOL since you don't have anything to prove your point, so indulge in ad-hominems.

I've already posted sources which indicated as to why certain historians(Mostly Brits) have vested interests in depicting Tipu Sultan as tyrant. Anyways here is an excerpt from one of the article.

It was, in short, time to take out Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The president of the board of control, Henry Dundas, the minister who oversaw the East India Company, had just the man for the job. Richard Wellesley was sent out to India in 1798 as governor general with specific instructions to effect regime change in Mysore and replace Tipu with a western-backed puppet. First, however, Wellesley and Dundas had to justify to the British public a policy whose outcome had long been decided in private.

Wellesley therefore began a campaign of vilification against Tipu, portraying him as an aggressive Muslim monster who divided his time between oppressing his subjects and planning to drive the British into the sea. This essay in imperial villain-making opened the way for a lucrative conquest and the installation of a more pliable regime that would, in the words of Wellesley, allow the British to give the impression they were handing the country back to its rightful owners while in reality maintaining firm control.


Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/24/foreignpolicy.india

Also do check my previous posts.

Hindutva supporters can't be punished more than Akbar Owaisi. Let me put things into perspective, after the formation of Islamic state Pakistan, No one can blame Majority Hindus from Making India Hindu republic. Even today if 60% of population decides to make India a Hindu republic, no one on earth can question them. Constitution is not a magic power, majority mindset gives constitution its power and validity.
Wow so you want to get rid of Indian constitution? And your kind has the audacity to label others as anti-nationals.

Stop spreading lies Pandit Sunder lal report estimates dead to 24000, other estimates are not proven and totally baseless. And most of the people killed were Radical Razakars and cruel zamindars. 90% of Hyderabad population was and is Hindu. Majority Hindu state was well inside Indian territory and not a border region like Kashmir. Now to maintain Nizam rule, Islamist Razakars under Kasim rizvi went on a murderous rampage of Hindus and Pro-India muslims. After Operation polo people poor farmers and other downtrodden rose up and took revenge against Razakars. This is the problem of people like you. You view things out of context to play victim cards. Most razakars deserved it.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...akars-brutality-reminisces/article5126155.ece
http://andhrajihad.blogspot.in/2010/03/have-telugu-speakers-forgotten-jihadi.html
Kasim rizvi would have killed 1 crore 40 lakh Hindus if he could and make Hyderabad a Islamic state. But Indian army was a battle-hardened and experienced in World War 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_II
Participation in World war 2 made India and its army this strong
It was a report made by the Government appointed committee, its another thing that your lot will want to deny that.

Jammu region:
Jammu was always Hindu Majority, the so called killings were part of the partition riots. When Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan were killed and driven out. some of them came to Jammu region and exacted revenge. Again you put things out of context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres


Again let me put things into context, Hindus where cheering Yogi when he said he would kill 100 muslims in revenge for killing 1 Hindu" . Yogi omitted the word kill, enraged people said kill. Yogi never said about raping muslim girls, that video is fake. Confrontation only makes Hindutwa stronger and stronger. All Owaisi achieved is create Raja Singh.
Nice story about Hindus and Sikhs exacting revenge LOL. Your posted article clearly states the following

Observers state that Hari Singh’s aim was to alter the demographics of the region by eliminating the Muslim population, in order to ensure a Hindu majority in the region.


I hope you understand what that meant, so get your facts right.
 
.
LOL since you don't have anything to prove your point, so indulge in ad-hominems.

I've already posted sources which indicated as to why certain historians(Mostly Brits) have vested interests in depicting Tipu Sultan as tyrant. Anyways here is an excerpt from one of the article.

It was, in short, time to take out Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The president of the board of control, Henry Dundas, the minister who oversaw the East India Company, had just the man for the job. Richard Wellesley was sent out to India in 1798 as governor general with specific instructions to effect regime change in Mysore and replace Tipu with a western-backed puppet. First, however, Wellesley and Dundas had to justify to the British public a policy whose outcome had long been decided in private.

Wellesley therefore began a campaign of vilification against Tipu, portraying him as an aggressive Muslim monster who divided his time between oppressing his subjects and planning to drive the British into the sea. This essay in imperial villain-making opened the way for a lucrative conquest and the installation of a more pliable regime that would, in the words of Wellesley, allow the British to give the impression they were handing the country back to its rightful owners while in reality maintaining firm control.


Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/24/foreignpolicy.india

Also do check my previous posts.


Wow so you want to get rid of Indian constitution? And your kind has the audacity to label others as anti-nationals.


It was a report made by the Government appointed committee, its another thing that your lot will want to deny that.


Nice story about Hindus and Sikhs exacting revenge LOL. Your posted article clearly states the following

Observers state that Hari Singh’s aim was to alter the demographics of the region by eliminating the Muslim population, in order to ensure a Hindu majority in the region.


I hope you understand what that meant, so get your facts right.
Tipu sultan was no saint, He is neither a hero nor a villain(at-least compared to other Indian rulers). British just used his negative side and used it as a propaganda to manipulate Hindus.
LOL since you don't have anything to prove your point, so indulge in ad-hominems.

I've already posted sources which indicated as to why certain historians(Mostly Brits) have vested interests in depicting Tipu Sultan as tyrant. Anyways here is an excerpt from one of the article.

It was, in short, time to take out Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The president of the board of control, Henry Dundas, the minister who oversaw the East India Company, had just the man for the job. Richard Wellesley was sent out to India in 1798 as governor general with specific instructions to effect regime change in Mysore and replace Tipu with a western-backed puppet. First, however, Wellesley and Dundas had to justify to the British public a policy whose outcome had long been decided in private.

Wellesley therefore began a campaign of vilification against Tipu, portraying him as an aggressive Muslim monster who divided his time between oppressing his subjects and planning to drive the British into the sea. This essay in imperial villain-making opened the way for a lucrative conquest and the installation of a more pliable regime that would, in the words of Wellesley, allow the British to give the impression they were handing the country back to its rightful owners while in reality maintaining firm control.


Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/24/foreignpolicy.india

Also do check my previous posts.


Wow so you want to get rid of Indian constitution? And your kind has the audacity to label others as anti-nationals.


It was a report made by the Government appointed committee, its another thing that your lot will want to deny that.


Nice story about Hindus and Sikhs exacting revenge LOL. Your posted article clearly states the following

Observers state that Hari Singh’s aim was to alter the demographics of the region by eliminating the Muslim population, in order to ensure a Hindu majority in the region.


I hope you understand what that meant, so get your facts right.
Tipu sultan was no saint, He is neither a hero nor a villain(at-least compared to other Indian rulers). British just used his negative side and used it as a propaganda to manipulate Hindus. But the point is Tipu had a negative side. He did destroy temples and convert people with force. Many oppressed Hindus in Malabar and Coorg region welcomed the Wellington's killing of Tipu.

Just like Mughal rule majority Hindus never accepted Tipu sultan or Nizam rule. 90% of muslims voted for Pakistan, It was Jinnah who said Hindus and muslims were different. Most rich muslims went to Pakistan, only poor muslims stayed behind in India because they didn't have the finances to emigrate. You should be grateful to Hindus for atleast trying to make India secular, But this secularism seems more like a burden.
Not a single Hyderabadi muslim participated in Indian Independence.

Jammu region had 60% Hindu population during 1947, Hari Singh drove many muslims away in 1948 when Tribals invaded Kashmir and started killing Hindus. Hari Singh's actions where a reaction to massacare of 8 lakh Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. Karachi was a Hindu majority city before 1947.
 
.
LOL since you don't have anything to prove your point, so indulge in ad-hominems.

I've already posted sources which indicated as to why certain historians(Mostly Brits) have vested interests in depicting Tipu Sultan as tyrant. Anyways here is an excerpt from one of the article.

It was, in short, time to take out Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The president of the board of control, Henry Dundas, the minister who oversaw the East India Company, had just the man for the job. Richard Wellesley was sent out to India in 1798 as governor general with specific instructions to effect regime change in Mysore and replace Tipu with a western-backed puppet. First, however, Wellesley and Dundas had to justify to the British public a policy whose outcome had long been decided in private.

Wellesley therefore began a campaign of vilification against Tipu, portraying him as an aggressive Muslim monster who divided his time between oppressing his subjects and planning to drive the British into the sea. This essay in imperial villain-making opened the way for a lucrative conquest and the installation of a more pliable regime that would, in the words of Wellesley, allow the British to give the impression they were handing the country back to its rightful owners while in reality maintaining firm control.


Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/24/foreignpolicy.india

Also do check my previous posts.


Wow so you want to get rid of Indian constitution? And your kind has the audacity to label others as anti-nationals.


It was a report made by the Government appointed committee, its another thing that your lot will want to deny that.


Nice story about Hindus and Sikhs exacting revenge LOL. Your posted article clearly states the following

Observers state that Hari Singh’s aim was to alter the demographics of the region by eliminating the Muslim population, in order to ensure a Hindu majority in the region.


I hope you understand what that meant, so get your facts right.
You can't expect Indian constitution to do Aurangzeb's work. Many Indians specially the downtrodden and Dalits see British occupation as a positive thing.

Many Indians welcomed Wellington as hero who liberated them from tyrannic rule of Tipu S.

Let me provide certain excerpts from books that dealt with the subject,

From Mutiny at the Margins by Crispin Bates

In the context of the 1857 revolution

As these high caste personnel of the Bengal army turned against the East India Company, the British mobilized a section of the low castes. The Awadh police force, for example, had a large component of Pasis, Bhungis, Chamars and Dhanuks, who participated in the suppression of the revolt. It thus appears that Dalits did not have much to gain and only something to lose by being active allies in the revolt. The purity/pollution ties of the upper castes and classes, linked with the crossing of seas or biting of the flesh of the cow or the pig, did not affect the Dalits in the same way. It is not surprising that Jyotiba Phule congratulated the Mahars for aiding the British in suppressing the 1857 revolt. In fact, from Phule to Ambedkar, a significant part of Dalit tradition has repeatedly celebrated the victory of the British in 1857, which, according to some Dalit intellectuals, was an antithesis of modernity and was retrogressive and narcissistically upper caste.

The below statement speaks volumes about the mentality of the upper castes in the past, how justice was one sided and how the British made life a little better for the Dalits

On the complaint of a sweeper or a leather worker, they (the British) seize the person of even a Nawab and a Raja and disgrace him.

From Emancipation of Dalits and Freedom Struggle by Himansu Charan Sadangi

Gopal Baba Walangkar, a Dalit leader of the mid 19th century had this to say,

God has sent the British to rule as punishment for these people's persecution of the untouchable.

And at last, the statement by Dr. Ambedkar just an year before independence,

British rule in India would have been impossible if the untouchables had not helped the British to conquer India. Take the Battle of Plassey which laid the beginning of British rule or the battle of Kirkee which completed the conquest of India. In both these fateful battles the soldiers who fought for the British were all untouchables…

If someone of the stature of Dr. Ambedkar has made a statement like the one above, it only adds credence to the view that Dalits wanted to get rid of the upper caste rule at any cost and hence actively aided the British.


So all in all, it can be concluded that the British rule brought many positive changes in the lives of Dalits. Dalits very much preferred the British rule to the upper caste fiefdom that existed before the British came. Upper caste rulers that Dalits fought against during the British rule were a fiefdom and not the Republic of India. Dalits should be proud that they played an important role alongside the British in toppling castiest kingdoms.

1 – TIPU’s family were NOT rulers of MYSORE. Hyder Ali who joined as an ordinary soldier under Wodyar Kings of MYSORE usurped power. Between 1774 -76 Hyder Ali plundered Malabar in Kerala although The ZAMRINE of Calicut (Malabar) was independent of British. ZAMRINE committed suicide with his entire family to save himself from being forcibly converted to Islam .In 1782 Hyder died and TIPU became the leader of the plundering gang. In 1788,TIPU plundered Malabar again and declare Martial Law from Ponnani to Kannur.

2—28 December 1789- TIPU attacks Travancore and breech the fortification (Nedum Kotta)constructed by Travancore from Kodungallor on the Arabian sea to the Western Ghats. The Travancore Army protecting the fortification counter attacked and forced TIPU’s army to flee grievously injuring TIPU in the process.

3—20 March 1790. TIPU recommence attack after recuperating for about 2-3 months and captured the fortification by 20 April 1790. Travancore Army withdraws and TIPU plunders Paravoor,Allanghad and Alwaye. At Alwaye, TIPU camped along the banks of PERIYAR river.

4— May1790. The Travancore Army immediately sets out to build earth dams along all tributaries of PERIYAR River in the Western Ghats. These dams were simultaneously breeched after they were filled in pre-monsoon and TIPU’s Army camping along PERIYAR River banks got washed away in the ferocious flash floods caused by the breached dams. TIPU lost all his Artillery, most of the Cavalry and many of his soldiers. What was left of the Army managed to extricate in groups of 10-20 and regrouped only in Coimbatore due to pursuing Travancore Army.

5—1790-92 Seeing that TIPU had considerably weakened and lost most of his French Guns in the war with Travancore, the British attacked TIPU and defeated him at Srirangapatanam in 1792. British captured all land North of Cochin from TIPU and thus Malabar part of Kerala became part of Madras Presidency of British India.
TIPU agreed to pay 30Lakh gold coins to BRITISH and handed over his sons Moiz-ud-din and Abd-ul- khalik to britsih as hostages till payment of ransom.

6—1792-99 TIPU did NOT venture out on any major plundering spree from 1792 to 1799 and led a quite life but British attacked TIPU on the instigation and with 36000 soldiers of NIZAM in February 1799. TIPU was killed at Srirangapatanam and the Northern part of Mysore given to NIZAM for the assistance rendered by NIZAM. This part of North Karnataka (Bellary, remained with the NIZAM till 1947. The WODYARS were restored to the throne in rest of MYSORE.

TRAVANCORE PART OF KERALA WAS NEVER EVER CAPTURED BY MUSLIMS AND SO THE TEMPLE AT TRIVANDRUM HAS "ONE LAKH CRORE" WEALTH AS IT WAS NOT LOOTED BY MUSLIMS


  • To know TIPU, ask people of Malabar and Coorg. He was intolerant to all communities except islam. His era was the darkest period in Kerala and so his not so noble/not so tolerant stories come from here.

    To me. he was worse than Aurangzeb. There are hindu families in Mysore who dont celebrate Deepawali beacuse their ancestors were massacred by the so called noble king on the Deepawali day. The river netravathi in coastral karnataka was once strewn will dead bodies on rebels and people had to move out of the place and settle down.

    There are temples like triprayar, guruvayoor, vadukanathan which bear marks on his invasion till today. Infact, the temple idols were removed and moved to a safer place to avois desecration. He carried it in Kerala because he had lost air in Mysore with the Marathas attacking and showing his worth at will. He found a softer place to shown his not so noble side, and that was Kerala and Coorg.

    He is also the direct reason for the Mopila riots as they were disillusioned by the aggressive form of islam he showed them. His incidents are noteworthy among christians whose churches he has demolished and looted at will. His rule was either the cap "conversion" or the sword "death.

    Please do not bore us with this bigot. There are other Sufi saints who showed the better side of islam. These stories of him being a saint, philosopher...blah blah and nonsense wont impress the living and dead souls who were tortured by his form of islam. He was a blot to islam and mankind.

    Point 1--- History of MYSORE & History of ZAMORINE.

    Point 2-4----- HISTORY OF TRAVANCORE from 1600AD to 1850 (Kings did maintain their own history) .

    Point 5-6 British History of Mysore wars & NIZAMS History of NIZAM RULE (Nizam also maintained history). ---------- ONE LAKH CRORE WEALTH in Trivandrum Temple- recent disclosures. ------------------ Retaining WODYAR KINGS as titular heads by Hyder Ali & Tipu & restoration of WODYAR KINGS as rulers by British establish the USURPMENT of HYDER ALI. WODYAR Kings remained the rulers of MYSORE till 1947 like the NIZAMS -------------------------------------- The NIZAMS HISTORY even claim that the BRITISH ARMY used NIZAMS GUNS to break the Srirangapatanam Fort walls through which British attacked and killed TIPU. -------------------------- If in doubt just GOOGLE.

 
.
Tipu sultan was no saint, He is neither a hero nor a villain(at-least compared to other Indian rulers). British just used his negative side and used it as a propaganda to manipulate Hindus.

Tipu sultan was no saint, He is neither a hero nor a villain(at-least compared to other Indian rulers). British just used his negative side and used it as a propaganda to manipulate Hindus. But the point is Tipu had a negative side. He did destroy temples and convert people with force. Many oppressed Hindus in Malabar and Coorg region welcomed the Wellington's killing of Tipu. Just like Mughal rule majority Hindus never accepted Tipu sultan or Nizam rule.
I didn't claim Tipu Sultan to be a saint, he was a ruler just like any other contemporary King of his times. He did what rulers normally do. So my point was, why single him out when others were no better. Marathas raped, plundered, pillaged and killed but they never receive the flak like Tipu Sultan does.

90% of muslims voted for Pakistan, It was Jinnah who said Hindus and muslims were different. Most rich muslims went to Pakistan, only poor muslims stayed behind in India because they didn't have the finances to emigrate. You should be grateful to Hindus for atleast trying to make India secular, But this secularism seems more like a burden.
Not a single Hyderabadi muslim participated in Indian Independence.

Jammu region had 60% Hindu population during 1947, Hari Singh drove many muslims away in 1948 when Tribals invaded Kashmir and started killing Hindus. Hari Singh's actions where a reaction to massacare of 8 lakh Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. Karachi was a Hindu majority city before 1947.
It wasn't Jinnah who first brought up the 2 nation theory, it was Hindu nationalists who opined so, Here are some excerpts for you...

In the late 19th century, Nabagopal Mitra, one of the pioneers of Hindu nationalism, authored a paper in which he described the Hindus of India as a nation that was better than the Muslims and the Christians. He added that ‘the basis of national unity in India was the Hindu religion’ and that the Hindus should strive to form an ‘Aryan nation.’

In an early 20th century pamphlet, Bhai Paramanand, a leading member of the Hindu reformist movement the Arya Samaj, described the Hindus and Muslims as being two separate nations who were ‘irreconcilable.’ In his autobiography, ‘My Life’, Pramanand mentions how in 1908 he called for an exchange and settling of Hindu and Muslim populations in different geographical areas.

In a December 14, 1924 article in the Bombay daily, The Tribune, Congress leader and Hindu nationalist Lajpat Rai too called for a ‘clear partition of the region into a Hindu India and non-Hindu India …’

In 1923, poet and playwright, VD Savarkar, coined the word, ‘Hindutva’ in a book (also titled Hindutva). He coined the word to mean ‘Hinduness’ and wrote that the Muslims (and the Christians) of India were outside of ‘Hindu nationhood.’ Then, in 1937 while speaking at the 19th session of the influential Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar insisted ‘there are two nations in India: Hindus and the Muslims.’

In 1939, MS Golwalker — the supreme leader of the radical Hindu organisation the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) — published his book, ‘We, Or Our Nationhood Defined’. In it he asserted that the minority communities of India (specifically, Muslim) should merge with the Hindu nation or perish. He wrote that non-Hindus in India could not be considered Indian unless they were ‘purified’ (i.e. converted to Hinduism).
Its chief mentor V.D. Savarkar formulated the two-nation theory in his essay Hindutva, published in 1923, 16 years before Jinnah came up with it. The Hindu Mahasabha leader Lala Lajpat Rai wrote in The Tribune of December 14, 1924:

"Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province or the North-West Frontier; (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Mulsim India." This was 16 years before the League adopted the Pakistan Resolution in Lahore, on March 23, 1940 (emphasis added, throughout). Prof. Muhammad Aslam Malik claims: "The present study concentrates only on how the resolution was shaped. It deals with the subject exhaustively and explains some of the intriguing questions objectively... Nevertheless, it is not the last word on the subject." This stroke of modesty is preceded by a sustained belittling of all others who wrote on the subject. In bringing to light important archival material, the author renders high service. In proceeding to analyse them, however, he only amuses the reader when his aim, apparently, is to enlighten him. One who can confidently assert that B. Shiva Rao was "the proprietor of The Hindu", that the hill-station Matheran, which Jinnah loved, was an "island", and that Sir Chimanlal Setalvad was a Parsi, can assert anything. He draws freely on his imagination. "It can be imagined that Jinnah would have agreed to favour Sir Sikandar only when the latter agreed to support the League's Pakistan proposition, which he had vehemently opposed at the Delhi meeting of the Working Committee. It can also be visualised that, for the sake of saving his face, Sikandar should have demanded the inclusion of some of his suggestions in the 'outline'..."

The author is out to prove a thesis which some people in India also espouse - Jinnah was for Partition from the mid-1930s and the Lahore Resolution was not a bargaining counter. He thinks that his leader is belittled if the contrary is averred. One is reminded of the judge who said "this court may often be in error, but it is never in doubt."

There were four forces at work then. The historians of the Hindu Right, R.C. Majumdar and A.K. Majumdar, refer in Struggle for Freedom (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan; 1969; page 611) "to one factor which was responsible to a very large extent for the emergence of the idea of Partition of India on communal lines. This was the Hindu Mahasabha..." Recently, the veteran socialist Prem Bhasin wrote: "The ease with which a large number of Congressmen and women - small, big and bigger still - have walked into the RSS-BJP boat and sailed with it is not a matter of surprise. For, there has always been a certain affinity between the two. A large and influential section in the Congress sincerely believed even during the freedom struggle that the interests of Hindu Indians could not be sacrificed at the altar of a united Independent India. Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Lala Lajpat Rai had, for instance, actually broken away from the Congress and founded the Nationalist Party which contested elections against the Congress in the mid-twenties" (Janata; Annual Number, 1998). G.B. Pant was the architect of the Ayodhya problem.


Source:

http://caravandaily.com/portal/how-hindu-right-helped-propound-the-2-nation-theory-and-pakistan/
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1826/18260810.htm

Saying that India is secular because of majority Hindus is like stating Turkey is secular because it is a muslim majority. It was popular Leaders like Nehru etc who sold the idea of secular state to masses and bought the idea, the way Modi is selling his idea of India and many Hindus seem to latch it up in the present times.

Not a single Hyderabadi muslim participated in Indian Independence? LOL brush up your knowledge. Sayyid Ahmedullah Qadri was a Hyderabadi muslim and a freedom fighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Ahmedullah_Qadri

Its an irony that those who never fought for Indian independence are doling out Nationalism certificates.

Do you post just for the sake of it? Your source clearly stated that muslims were majority in Jammu yet you keep coming back stating otherwise. Your source also states that it was Hari Singh who initiated this massacre and you speak of some "reaction".

You can't expect Indian constitution to do Aurangzeb's work. Many Indians specially the downtrodden and Dalits see British occupation as a positive thing.

Many Indians welcomed Wellington as hero who liberated them from tyrannic rule of Tipu S.

Let me provide certain excerpts from books that dealt with the subject,

From Mutiny at the Margins by Crispin Bates

In the context of the 1857 revolution

As these high caste personnel of the Bengal army turned against the East India Company, the British mobilized a section of the low castes. The Awadh police force, for example, had a large component of Pasis, Bhungis, Chamars and Dhanuks, who participated in the suppression of the revolt. It thus appears that Dalits did not have much to gain and only something to lose by being active allies in the revolt. The purity/pollution ties of the upper castes and classes, linked with the crossing of seas or biting of the flesh of the cow or the pig, did not affect the Dalits in the same way. It is not surprising that Jyotiba Phule congratulated the Mahars for aiding the British in suppressing the 1857 revolt. In fact, from Phule to Ambedkar, a significant part of Dalit tradition has repeatedly celebrated the victory of the British in 1857, which, according to some Dalit intellectuals, was an antithesis of modernity and was retrogressive and narcissistically upper caste.

The below statement speaks volumes about the mentality of the upper castes in the past, how justice was one sided and how the British made life a little better for the Dalits

On the complaint of a sweeper or a leather worker, they (the British) seize the person of even a Nawab and a Raja and disgrace him.

From Emancipation of Dalits and Freedom Struggle by Himansu Charan Sadangi

Gopal Baba Walangkar, a Dalit leader of the mid 19th century had this to say,

God has sent the British to rule as punishment for these people's persecution of the untouchable.

And at last, the statement by Dr. Ambedkar just an year before independence,

British rule in India would have been impossible if the untouchables had not helped the British to conquer India. Take the Battle of Plassey which laid the beginning of British rule or the battle of Kirkee which completed the conquest of India. In both these fateful battles the soldiers who fought for the British were all untouchables…

If someone of the stature of Dr. Ambedkar has made a statement like the one above, it only adds credence to the view that Dalits wanted to get rid of the upper caste rule at any cost and hence actively aided the British.


So all in all, it can be concluded that the British rule brought many positive changes in the lives of Dalits. Dalits very much preferred the British rule to the upper caste fiefdom that existed before the British came. Upper caste rulers that Dalits fought against during the British rule were a fiefdom and not the Republic of India. Dalits should be proud that they played an important role alongside the British in toppling castiest kingdoms.

1 – TIPU’s family were NOT rulers of MYSORE. Hyder Ali who joined as an ordinary soldier under Wodyar Kings of MYSORE usurped power. Between 1774 -76 Hyder Ali plundered Malabar in Kerala although The ZAMRINE of Calicut (Malabar) was independent of British. ZAMRINE committed suicide with his entire family to save himself from being forcibly converted to Islam .In 1782 Hyder died and TIPU became the leader of the plundering gang. In 1788,TIPU plundered Malabar again and declare Martial Law from Ponnani to Kannur.

2—28 December 1789- TIPU attacks Travancore and breech the fortification (Nedum Kotta)constructed by Travancore from Kodungallor on the Arabian sea to the Western Ghats. The Travancore Army protecting the fortification counter attacked and forced TIPU’s army to flee grievously injuring TIPU in the process.

3—20 March 1790. TIPU recommence attack after recuperating for about 2-3 months and captured the fortification by 20 April 1790. Travancore Army withdraws and TIPU plunders Paravoor,Allanghad and Alwaye. At Alwaye, TIPU camped along the banks of PERIYAR river.

4— May1790. The Travancore Army immediately sets out to build earth dams along all tributaries of PERIYAR River in the Western Ghats. These dams were simultaneously breeched after they were filled in pre-monsoon and TIPU’s Army camping along PERIYAR River banks got washed away in the ferocious flash floods caused by the breached dams. TIPU lost all his Artillery, most of the Cavalry and many of his soldiers. What was left of the Army managed to extricate in groups of 10-20 and regrouped only in Coimbatore due to pursuing Travancore Army.

5—1790-92 Seeing that TIPU had considerably weakened and lost most of his French Guns in the war with Travancore, the British attacked TIPU and defeated him at Srirangapatanam in 1792. British captured all land North of Cochin from TIPU and thus Malabar part of Kerala became part of Madras Presidency of British India.
TIPU agreed to pay 30Lakh gold coins to BRITISH and handed over his sons Moiz-ud-din and Abd-ul- khalik to britsih as hostages till payment of ransom.

6—1792-99 TIPU did NOT venture out on any major plundering spree from 1792 to 1799 and led a quite life but British attacked TIPU on the instigation and with 36000 soldiers of NIZAM in February 1799. TIPU was killed at Srirangapatanam and the Northern part of Mysore given to NIZAM for the assistance rendered by NIZAM. This part of North Karnataka (Bellary, remained with the NIZAM till 1947. The WODYARS were restored to the throne in rest of MYSORE.

TRAVANCORE PART OF KERALA WAS NEVER EVER CAPTURED BY MUSLIMS AND SO THE TEMPLE AT TRIVANDRUM HAS "ONE LAKH CRORE" WEALTH AS IT WAS NOT LOOTED BY MUSLIMS


  • To know TIPU, ask people of Malabar and Coorg. He was intolerant to all communities except islam. His era was the darkest period in Kerala and so his not so noble/not so tolerant stories come from here.

    To me. he was worse than Aurangzeb. There are hindu families in Mysore who dont celebrate Deepawali beacuse their ancestors were massacred by the so called noble king on the Deepawali day. The river netravathi in coastral karnataka was once strewn will dead bodies on rebels and people had to move out of the place and settle down.

    There are temples like triprayar, guruvayoor, vadukanathan which bear marks on his invasion till today. Infact, the temple idols were removed and moved to a safer place to avois desecration. He carried it in Kerala because he had lost air in Mysore with the Marathas attacking and showing his worth at will. He found a softer place to shown his not so noble side, and that was Kerala and Coorg.

    He is also the direct reason for the Mopila riots as they were disillusioned by the aggressive form of islam he showed them. His incidents are noteworthy among christians whose churches he has demolished and looted at will. His rule was either the cap "conversion" or the sword "death.

    Please do not bore us with this bigot. There are other Sufi saints who showed the better side of islam. These stories of him being a saint, philosopher...blah blah and nonsense wont impress the living and dead souls who were tortured by his form of islam. He was a blot to islam and mankind.

    Point 1--- History of MYSORE & History of ZAMORINE.

    Point 2-4----- HISTORY OF TRAVANCORE from 1600AD to 1850 (Kings did maintain their own history) .

    Point 5-6 British History of Mysore wars & NIZAMS History of NIZAM RULE (Nizam also maintained history). ---------- ONE LAKH CRORE WEALTH in Trivandrum Temple- recent disclosures. ------------------ Retaining WODYAR KINGS as titular heads by Hyder Ali & Tipu & restoration of WODYAR KINGS as rulers by British establish the USURPMENT of HYDER ALI. WODYAR Kings remained the rulers of MYSORE till 1947 like the NIZAMS -------------------------------------- The NIZAMS HISTORY even claim that the BRITISH ARMY used NIZAMS GUNS to break the Srirangapatanam Fort walls through which British attacked and killed TIPU. -------------------------- If in doubt just GOOGLE.
Not sure why you brought up Dalits into the debate. And for the rest of your post, you just posted what is already known and what other rulers including Hindu Kings did during their rule.
 
.
I didn't claim Tipu Sultan to be a saint, he was a ruler just like any other contemporary King of his times. He did what rulers normally do. So my point was, why single him out when others were no better. Marathas raped, plundered, pillaged and killed but they never receive the flak like Tipu Sultan does.


It wasn't Jinnah who first brought up the 2 nation theory, it was Hindu nationalists who opined so, Here are some excerpts for you...

In the late 19th century, Nabagopal Mitra, one of the pioneers of Hindu nationalism, authored a paper in which he described the Hindus of India as a nation that was better than the Muslims and the Christians. He added that ‘the basis of national unity in India was the Hindu religion’ and that the Hindus should strive to form an ‘Aryan nation.’

In an early 20th century pamphlet, Bhai Paramanand, a leading member of the Hindu reformist movement the Arya Samaj, described the Hindus and Muslims as being two separate nations who were ‘irreconcilable.’ In his autobiography, ‘My Life’, Pramanand mentions how in 1908 he called for an exchange and settling of Hindu and Muslim populations in different geographical areas.

In a December 14, 1924 article in the Bombay daily, The Tribune, Congress leader and Hindu nationalist Lajpat Rai too called for a ‘clear partition of the region into a Hindu India and non-Hindu India …’

In 1923, poet and playwright, VD Savarkar, coined the word, ‘Hindutva’ in a book (also titled Hindutva). He coined the word to mean ‘Hinduness’ and wrote that the Muslims (and the Christians) of India were outside of ‘Hindu nationhood.’ Then, in 1937 while speaking at the 19th session of the influential Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar insisted ‘there are two nations in India: Hindus and the Muslims.’

In 1939, MS Golwalker — the supreme leader of the radical Hindu organisation the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) — published his book, ‘We, Or Our Nationhood Defined’. In it he asserted that the minority communities of India (specifically, Muslim) should merge with the Hindu nation or perish. He wrote that non-Hindus in India could not be considered Indian unless they were ‘purified’ (i.e. converted to Hinduism).
Its chief mentor V.D. Savarkar formulated the two-nation theory in his essay Hindutva, published in 1923, 16 years before Jinnah came up with it. The Hindu Mahasabha leader Lala Lajpat Rai wrote in The Tribune of December 14, 1924:

"Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province or the North-West Frontier; (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Mulsim India." This was 16 years before the League adopted the Pakistan Resolution in Lahore, on March 23, 1940 (emphasis added, throughout). Prof. Muhammad Aslam Malik claims: "The present study concentrates only on how the resolution was shaped. It deals with the subject exhaustively and explains some of the intriguing questions objectively... Nevertheless, it is not the last word on the subject." This stroke of modesty is preceded by a sustained belittling of all others who wrote on the subject. In bringing to light important archival material, the author renders high service. In proceeding to analyse them, however, he only amuses the reader when his aim, apparently, is to enlighten him. One who can confidently assert that B. Shiva Rao was "the proprietor of The Hindu", that the hill-station Matheran, which Jinnah loved, was an "island", and that Sir Chimanlal Setalvad was a Parsi, can assert anything. He draws freely on his imagination. "It can be imagined that Jinnah would have agreed to favour Sir Sikandar only when the latter agreed to support the League's Pakistan proposition, which he had vehemently opposed at the Delhi meeting of the Working Committee. It can also be visualised that, for the sake of saving his face, Sikandar should have demanded the inclusion of some of his suggestions in the 'outline'..."

The author is out to prove a thesis which some people in India also espouse - Jinnah was for Partition from the mid-1930s and the Lahore Resolution was not a bargaining counter. He thinks that his leader is belittled if the contrary is averred. One is reminded of the judge who said "this court may often be in error, but it is never in doubt."

There were four forces at work then. The historians of the Hindu Right, R.C. Majumdar and A.K. Majumdar, refer in Struggle for Freedom (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan; 1969; page 611) "to one factor which was responsible to a very large extent for the emergence of the idea of Partition of India on communal lines. This was the Hindu Mahasabha..." Recently, the veteran socialist Prem Bhasin wrote: "The ease with which a large number of Congressmen and women - small, big and bigger still - have walked into the RSS-BJP boat and sailed with it is not a matter of surprise. For, there has always been a certain affinity between the two. A large and influential section in the Congress sincerely believed even during the freedom struggle that the interests of Hindu Indians could not be sacrificed at the altar of a united Independent India. Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Lala Lajpat Rai had, for instance, actually broken away from the Congress and founded the Nationalist Party which contested elections against the Congress in the mid-twenties" (Janata; Annual Number, 1998). G.B. Pant was the architect of the Ayodhya problem.


Source:

http://caravandaily.com/portal/how-hindu-right-helped-propound-the-2-nation-theory-and-pakistan/
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1826/18260810.htm

Saying that India is secular because of majority Hindus is like stating Turkey is secular because it is a muslim majority. It was popular Leaders like Nehru etc who sold the idea of secular state to masses and bought it, the way Modi is selling his idea of India and many Hindus seem to latch it up.

Not a single Hyderabadi muslim participated in Indian Independence? LOL brush up your knowledge. Sayyid Ahmedullah Qadri was a Hyderabadi muslim and a freedom fighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Ahmedullah_Qadri

Its an irony that those who never fought for Indian independence are doling out Nationalism certificates.

Do you post just for the sake of it? Your source clearly stated that muslims were majority in Jammu yet you keep coming back stating otherwise. Your source also states that it was Hari Singh who initiated this massacre and you speak of some "reaction".

LOL...the earliest example of Hindu talking about separation you have given is from 1908.

However Muslim league was formed in 1901. :lol: Jinnah joined the ML in 1912.

Partition of Bengal along religious lines happened in 1905 with full participation of the Muslim league.

LOL at your fig leaf.
 
.
I didn't claim Tipu Sultan to be a saint, he was a ruler just like any other contemporary King of his times. He did what rulers normally do. So my point was, why single him out when others were no better. Marathas raped, plundered, pillaged and killed but they never receive the flak like Tipu Sultan does.


It wasn't Jinnah who first brought up the 2 nation theory, it was Hindu nationalists who opined so, Here are some excerpts for you...

In the late 19th century, Nabagopal Mitra, one of the pioneers of Hindu nationalism, authored a paper in which he described the Hindus of India as a nation that was better than the Muslims and the Christians. He added that ‘the basis of national unity in India was the Hindu religion’ and that the Hindus should strive to form an ‘Aryan nation.’

In an early 20th century pamphlet, Bhai Paramanand, a leading member of the Hindu reformist movement the Arya Samaj, described the Hindus and Muslims as being two separate nations who were ‘irreconcilable.’ In his autobiography, ‘My Life’, Pramanand mentions how in 1908 he called for an exchange and settling of Hindu and Muslim populations in different geographical areas.

In a December 14, 1924 article in the Bombay daily, The Tribune, Congress leader and Hindu nationalist Lajpat Rai too called for a ‘clear partition of the region into a Hindu India and non-Hindu India …’

In 1923, poet and playwright, VD Savarkar, coined the word, ‘Hindutva’ in a book (also titled Hindutva). He coined the word to mean ‘Hinduness’ and wrote that the Muslims (and the Christians) of India were outside of ‘Hindu nationhood.’ Then, in 1937 while speaking at the 19th session of the influential Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar insisted ‘there are two nations in India: Hindus and the Muslims.’

In 1939, MS Golwalker — the supreme leader of the radical Hindu organisation the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) — published his book, ‘We, Or Our Nationhood Defined’. In it he asserted that the minority communities of India (specifically, Muslim) should merge with the Hindu nation or perish. He wrote that non-Hindus in India could not be considered Indian unless they were ‘purified’ (i.e. converted to Hinduism).
Its chief mentor V.D. Savarkar formulated the two-nation theory in his essay Hindutva, published in 1923, 16 years before Jinnah came up with it. The Hindu Mahasabha leader Lala Lajpat Rai wrote in The Tribune of December 14, 1924:

"Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province or the North-West Frontier; (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Mulsim India." This was 16 years before the League adopted the Pakistan Resolution in Lahore, on March 23, 1940 (emphasis added, throughout). Prof. Muhammad Aslam Malik claims: "The present study concentrates only on how the resolution was shaped. It deals with the subject exhaustively and explains some of the intriguing questions objectively... Nevertheless, it is not the last word on the subject." This stroke of modesty is preceded by a sustained belittling of all others who wrote on the subject. In bringing to light important archival material, the author renders high service. In proceeding to analyse them, however, he only amuses the reader when his aim, apparently, is to enlighten him. One who can confidently assert that B. Shiva Rao was "the proprietor of The Hindu", that the hill-station Matheran, which Jinnah loved, was an "island", and that Sir Chimanlal Setalvad was a Parsi, can assert anything. He draws freely on his imagination. "It can be imagined that Jinnah would have agreed to favour Sir Sikandar only when the latter agreed to support the League's Pakistan proposition, which he had vehemently opposed at the Delhi meeting of the Working Committee. It can also be visualised that, for the sake of saving his face, Sikandar should have demanded the inclusion of some of his suggestions in the 'outline'..."

The author is out to prove a thesis which some people in India also espouse - Jinnah was for Partition from the mid-1930s and the Lahore Resolution was not a bargaining counter. He thinks that his leader is belittled if the contrary is averred. One is reminded of the judge who said "this court may often be in error, but it is never in doubt."

There were four forces at work then. The historians of the Hindu Right, R.C. Majumdar and A.K. Majumdar, refer in Struggle for Freedom (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan; 1969; page 611) "to one factor which was responsible to a very large extent for the emergence of the idea of Partition of India on communal lines. This was the Hindu Mahasabha..." Recently, the veteran socialist Prem Bhasin wrote: "The ease with which a large number of Congressmen and women - small, big and bigger still - have walked into the RSS-BJP boat and sailed with it is not a matter of surprise. For, there has always been a certain affinity between the two. A large and influential section in the Congress sincerely believed even during the freedom struggle that the interests of Hindu Indians could not be sacrificed at the altar of a united Independent India. Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Lala Lajpat Rai had, for instance, actually broken away from the Congress and founded the Nationalist Party which contested elections against the Congress in the mid-twenties" (Janata; Annual Number, 1998). G.B. Pant was the architect of the Ayodhya problem.


Source:

http://caravandaily.com/portal/how-hindu-right-helped-propound-the-2-nation-theory-and-pakistan/
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1826/18260810.htm

Saying that India is secular because of majority Hindus is like stating Turkey is secular because it is a muslim majority. It was popular Leaders like Nehru etc who sold the idea of secular state to masses and bought the idea, the way Modi is selling his idea of India and many Hindus seem to latch it up in the present times.

Not a single Hyderabadi muslim participated in Indian Independence? LOL brush up your knowledge. Sayyid Ahmedullah Qadri was a Hyderabadi muslim and a freedom fighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Ahmedullah_Qadri

Its an irony that those who never fought for Indian independence are doling out Nationalism certificates.

Do you post just for the sake of it? Your source clearly stated that muslims were majority in Jammu yet you keep coming back stating otherwise. Your source also states that it was Hari Singh who initiated this massacre and you speak of some "reaction".


Not sure why you brought up Dalits into the debate. And for the rest of your post, you just posted what is already known and what other rulers including Hindu Kings did during their rule.
So Tipu Sultan is your Hero and British are your villain. And For most Hindus of Malabar and Coorg , Wellington is hero and Tipu Sultan is Villain. So you celebrate the birth of Tipu, and Hindus will celebrate the death of Tipu by their hero Wellington.

1 – TIPU’s family were NOT rulers of MYSORE. Hyder Ali who joined as an ordinary soldier under Wodyar Kings of MYSORE usurped power. Between 1774 -76 Hyder Ali plundered Malabar in Kerala although The ZAMRINE of Calicut (Malabar) was independent of British. ZAMRINE committed suicide with his entire family to save himself from being forcibly converted to Islam .In 1782 Hyder died and TIPU became the leader of the plundering gang. In 1788,TIPU plundered Malabar again and declare Martial Law from Ponnani to Kannur.

2—28 December 1789- TIPU attacks Travancore and breech the fortification (Nedum Kotta)constructed by Travancore from Kodungallor on the Arabian sea to the Western Ghats. The Travancore Army protecting the fortification counter attacked and forced TIPU’s army to flee grievously injuring TIPU in the process.

3—20 March 1790. TIPU recommence attack after recuperating for about 2-3 months and captured the fortification by 20 April 1790. Travancore Army withdraws and TIPU plunders Paravoor,Allanghad and Alwaye. At Alwaye, TIPU camped along the banks of PERIYAR river.

4— May1790. The Travancore Army immediately sets out to build earth dams along all tributaries of PERIYAR River in the Western Ghats. These dams were simultaneously breeched after they were filled in pre-monsoon and TIPU’s Army camping along PERIYAR River banks got washed away in the ferocious flash floods caused by the breached dams. TIPU lost all his Artillery, most of the Cavalry and many of his soldiers. What was left of the Army managed to extricate in groups of 10-20 and regrouped only in Coimbatore due to pursuing Travancore Army.

5—1790-92 Seeing that TIPU had considerably weakened and lost most of his French Guns in the war with Travancore, the British attacked TIPU and defeated him at Srirangapatanam in 1792. British captured all land North of Cochin from TIPU and thus Malabar part of Kerala became part of Madras Presidency of British India.
TIPU agreed to pay 30Lakh gold coins to BRITISH and handed over his sons Moiz-ud-din and Abd-ul- khalik to britsih as hostages till payment of ransom.

6—1792-99 TIPU did NOT venture out on any major plundering spree from 1792 to 1799 and led a quite life but British attacked TIPU on the instigation and with 36000 soldiers of NIZAM in February 1799. TIPU was killed at Srirangapatanam and the Northern part of Mysore given to NIZAM for the assistance rendered by NIZAM. This part of North Karnataka (Bellary, remained with the NIZAM till 1947. The WODYARS were restored to the throne in rest of MYSORE.

TRAVANCORE PART OF KERALA WAS NEVER EVER CAPTURED BY MUSLIMS AND SO THE TEMPLE AT TRIVANDRUM HAS "ONE LAKH CRORE" WEALTH AS IT WAS NOT LOOTED BY MUSLIMS


  • To know TIPU, ask people of Malabar and Coorg. He was intolerant to all communities except islam. His era was the darkest period in Kerala and so his not so noble/not so tolerant stories come from here.

    To me. he was worse than Aurangzeb. There are hindu families in Mysore who dont celebrate Deepawali beacuse their ancestors were massacred by the so called noble king on the Deepawali day. The river netravathi in coastral karnataka was once strewn will dead bodies on rebels and people had to move out of the place and settle down.

    There are temples like triprayar, guruvayoor, vadukanathan which bear marks on his invasion till today. Infact, the temple idols were removed and moved to a safer place to avois desecration. He carried it in Kerala because he had lost air in Mysore with the Marathas attacking and showing his worth at will. He found a softer place to shown his not so noble side, and that was Kerala and Coorg.

    He is also the direct reason for the Mopila riots as they were disillusioned by the aggressive form of islam he showed them. His incidents are noteworthy among christians whose churches he has demolished and looted at will. His rule was either the cap "conversion" or the sword "death.

    Please do not bore us with this bigot. There are other Sufi saints who showed the better side of islam. These stories of him being a saint, philosopher...blah blah and nonsense wont impress the living and dead souls who were tortured by his form of islam. He was a blot to islam and mankind.

    Point 1--- History of MYSORE & History of ZAMORINE.

    Point 2-4----- HISTORY OF TRAVANCORE from 1600AD to 1850 (Kings did maintain their own history) .

    Point 5-6 British History of Mysore wars & NIZAMS History of NIZAM RULE (Nizam also maintained history). ---------- ONE LAKH CRORE WEALTH in Trivandrum Temple- recent disclosures. ------------------ Retaining WODYAR KINGS as titular heads by Hyder Ali & Tipu & restoration of WODYAR KINGS as rulers by British establish the USURPMENT of HYDER ALI. WODYAR Kings remained the rulers of MYSORE till 1947 like the NIZAMS -------------------------------------- The NIZAMS HISTORY even claim that the BRITISH ARMY used NIZAMS GUNS to break the Srirangapatanam Fort walls through which British attacked and killed TIPU. -------------------------- If in doubt just GOOGLE.
 
.
LOL since you don't have anything to prove your point, so indulge in ad-hominems.

I've already posted sources which indicated as to why certain historians(Mostly Brits) have vested interests in depicting Tipu Sultan as tyrant. Anyways here is an excerpt from one of the article.

It was, in short, time to take out Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The president of the board of control, Henry Dundas, the minister who oversaw the East India Company, had just the man for the job. Richard Wellesley was sent out to India in 1798 as governor general with specific instructions to effect regime change in Mysore and replace Tipu with a western-backed puppet. First, however, Wellesley and Dundas had to justify to the British public a policy whose outcome had long been decided in private.

Wellesley therefore began a campaign of vilification against Tipu, portraying him as an aggressive Muslim monster who divided his time between oppressing his subjects and planning to drive the British into the sea. This essay in imperial villain-making opened the way for a lucrative conquest and the installation of a more pliable regime that would, in the words of Wellesley, allow the British to give the impression they were handing the country back to its rightful owners while in reality maintaining firm control.


Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/24/foreignpolicy.india

Also do check my previous posts.


Wow so you want to get rid of Indian constitution? And your kind has the audacity to label others as anti-nationals.


It was a report made by the Government appointed committee, its another thing that your lot will want to deny that.


Nice story about Hindus and Sikhs exacting revenge LOL. Your posted article clearly states the following

Observers state that Hari Singh’s aim was to alter the demographics of the region by eliminating the Muslim population, in order to ensure a Hindu majority in the region.


I hope you understand what that meant, so get your facts right.

We dont need British useless source to prove my point .Look at the demographic changes in Malabar,we have living examples in there to prove my point .
 
.
I didn't claim Tipu Sultan to be a saint, he was a ruler just like any other contemporary King of his times. He did what rulers normally do. So my point was, why single him out when others were no better. Marathas raped, plundered, pillaged and killed but they never receive the flak like Tipu Sultan does.


It wasn't Jinnah who first brought up the 2 nation theory, it was Hindu nationalists who opined so, Here are some excerpts for you...

In the late 19th century, Nabagopal Mitra, one of the pioneers of Hindu nationalism, authored a paper in which he described the Hindus of India as a nation that was better than the Muslims and the Christians. He added that ‘the basis of national unity in India was the Hindu religion’ and that the Hindus should strive to form an ‘Aryan nation.’

In an early 20th century pamphlet, Bhai Paramanand, a leading member of the Hindu reformist movement the Arya Samaj, described the Hindus and Muslims as being two separate nations who were ‘irreconcilable.’ In his autobiography, ‘My Life’, Pramanand mentions how in 1908 he called for an exchange and settling of Hindu and Muslim populations in different geographical areas.

In a December 14, 1924 article in the Bombay daily, The Tribune, Congress leader and Hindu nationalist Lajpat Rai too called for a ‘clear partition of the region into a Hindu India and non-Hindu India …’

In 1923, poet and playwright, VD Savarkar, coined the word, ‘Hindutva’ in a book (also titled Hindutva). He coined the word to mean ‘Hinduness’ and wrote that the Muslims (and the Christians) of India were outside of ‘Hindu nationhood.’ Then, in 1937 while speaking at the 19th session of the influential Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar insisted ‘there are two nations in India: Hindus and the Muslims.’

In 1939, MS Golwalker — the supreme leader of the radical Hindu organisation the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) — published his book, ‘We, Or Our Nationhood Defined’. In it he asserted that the minority communities of India (specifically, Muslim) should merge with the Hindu nation or perish. He wrote that non-Hindus in India could not be considered Indian unless they were ‘purified’ (i.e. converted to Hinduism).
Its chief mentor V.D. Savarkar formulated the two-nation theory in his essay Hindutva, published in 1923, 16 years before Jinnah came up with it. The Hindu Mahasabha leader Lala Lajpat Rai wrote in The Tribune of December 14, 1924:

"Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province or the North-West Frontier; (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Mulsim India." This was 16 years before the League adopted the Pakistan Resolution in Lahore, on March 23, 1940 (emphasis added, throughout). Prof. Muhammad Aslam Malik claims: "The present study concentrates only on how the resolution was shaped. It deals with the subject exhaustively and explains some of the intriguing questions objectively... Nevertheless, it is not the last word on the subject." This stroke of modesty is preceded by a sustained belittling of all others who wrote on the subject. In bringing to light important archival material, the author renders high service. In proceeding to analyse them, however, he only amuses the reader when his aim, apparently, is to enlighten him. One who can confidently assert that B. Shiva Rao was "the proprietor of The Hindu", that the hill-station Matheran, which Jinnah loved, was an "island", and that Sir Chimanlal Setalvad was a Parsi, can assert anything. He draws freely on his imagination. "It can be imagined that Jinnah would have agreed to favour Sir Sikandar only when the latter agreed to support the League's Pakistan proposition, which he had vehemently opposed at the Delhi meeting of the Working Committee. It can also be visualised that, for the sake of saving his face, Sikandar should have demanded the inclusion of some of his suggestions in the 'outline'..."

The author is out to prove a thesis which some people in India also espouse - Jinnah was for Partition from the mid-1930s and the Lahore Resolution was not a bargaining counter. He thinks that his leader is belittled if the contrary is averred. One is reminded of the judge who said "this court may often be in error, but it is never in doubt."

There were four forces at work then. The historians of the Hindu Right, R.C. Majumdar and A.K. Majumdar, refer in Struggle for Freedom (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan; 1969; page 611) "to one factor which was responsible to a very large extent for the emergence of the idea of Partition of India on communal lines. This was the Hindu Mahasabha..." Recently, the veteran socialist Prem Bhasin wrote: "The ease with which a large number of Congressmen and women - small, big and bigger still - have walked into the RSS-BJP boat and sailed with it is not a matter of surprise. For, there has always been a certain affinity between the two. A large and influential section in the Congress sincerely believed even during the freedom struggle that the interests of Hindu Indians could not be sacrificed at the altar of a united Independent India. Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Lala Lajpat Rai had, for instance, actually broken away from the Congress and founded the Nationalist Party which contested elections against the Congress in the mid-twenties" (Janata; Annual Number, 1998). G.B. Pant was the architect of the Ayodhya problem.


Source:

http://caravandaily.com/portal/how-hindu-right-helped-propound-the-2-nation-theory-and-pakistan/
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1826/18260810.htm

Saying that India is secular because of majority Hindus is like stating Turkey is secular because it is a muslim majority. It was popular Leaders like Nehru etc who sold the idea of secular state to masses and bought the idea, the way Modi is selling his idea of India and many Hindus seem to latch it up in the present times.

Not a single Hyderabadi muslim participated in Indian Independence? LOL brush up your knowledge. Sayyid Ahmedullah Qadri was a Hyderabadi muslim and a freedom fighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Ahmedullah_Qadri

Its an irony that those who never fought for Indian independence are doling out Nationalism certificates.

Do you post just for the sake of it? Your source clearly stated that muslims were majority in Jammu yet you keep coming back stating otherwise. Your source also states that it was Hari Singh who initiated this massacre and you speak of some "reaction".


Not sure why you brought up Dalits into the debate. And for the rest of your post, you just posted what is already known and what other rulers including Hindu Kings did during their rule.
Turkey became secular when Allies punished Turkey after world war 2 for supporting Germany. Allies destroyed Turkish Khalifate, that lead to Khalifate movement in India. The west supported Mustaffa Attaturk who made Turkey secular. Turkey did not became secular own its own.

In Mustafa Kemal’s own words, he describes the importance of Turkish identity and the insignificance of Islam as he sees it:

“Even before accepting the religion of the Arabs [Islam], the Turks were a great nation. After accepting the religion of the Arabs, this religion, didn’t effect to combine the Arabs, the Persians and Egyptians with the Turks to constitute a nation. (This religion) rather, loosened the national nexus of Turkish nation, got national excitement numb. This was very natural. Because the purpose of the religion founded by Muhammad, over all nations, was to drag to an including Arab national politics.”

– Mustafa Kemal, Medenî Bilgiler

http://lostislamichistory.com/how-ataturk-made-turkey-secular/
 
. .
So when cornered, you don't want any sources:lol:


I already made my points in previous posts and you are parroting the same thing again and again .
So in your world that is meant to be cornered?Ridiculous. :sarcastic:
British villifaction articles dont need to verify my points and nor the neutral sources are inspired by those Brits .
We keralites knows the reason behind the sudden demographic change in Malabar on religious lines .If you are an imbecile enough to ignore that point then I dont have anything to say.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom