Its a shame for INDIANS that we are allowing people like khurshid begum to write such books/plays and encouraging them to destroy hinduism dtill further. What babur, Akbar and others have done to INDIA was the worse that could have happened and whats happening today is WORST
Re: STOP PRAYING ON RUINS OF TEMPLES
by Ravindra Kumar on May 20, 2010 03:40 AM
This is the way to solve problem in a democracy. Put yourself in other's shoes, and develop respect for others rather than having adversarial run on god damn every issue from MFH, vande matram to kashmir. solve problem in indian context not in arabian context.
Khurshid, we all indians are appaled the way you project lies, deceit and distrotions on us. Well, it is self-styled secularist congresi raj. Is not it?
One question to you and all our muslim brothers (of course exclude those brave and bold -progressive kind)what do you think singing or not singing Bande matram. It is not for or against any religion. I gadly sing gandhi's Iswar, Allla tero nam.....so do you.... That is our India, that is IDEA- that India should be proud of-singing mother's song, universal mother or mother nature going beyound any stereotype that yours ilk is spreading. i donot care of bollywood art/cinema, but watch couples, i donot great fan of IPL games but watch couple. You know that hindus dont care for a form or fomless god, so why are spreading this lies on us.
If Qurans is written in arabian context, then why donot do prolific writing to free our people from that dogma and deceit?
I realy donot care how many people sing Bande matram or not, but I would not oppose it. But i am exploring that Great IDEAS about India which has hold us together. You are ripping that apart.
man, this mindless moronic conversion has caused this endless drama. call it drama, fictionalized history, bereft and breadth and depth of its dharma that INDIA isall about.
Dou you know that conversion is unconstitutional. Are you ready to talk abou it?
mugals were defeated by britishers rajputs were defeated by mugals giani ji were defeated by britishers mangal pandey never participated in 1857 revolt .he died many months before revolt of 1857 started .
By the time the British came Muslim rule had been fragmented and the Mahrattas and Sikhs were the dominant powers.
Yet these two would not have united at all because A) They could not speak each others language. B) They had no concept of the INDIAN SUBCONTINENT.
The SINGULAR event which heralded India's unity and territorial definition was the Great Trigonometric Survey which was a project surveying India throughout most of the 19th century. It was piloted in its initial stages by William Lambton, and later by George Everest. Among the many accomplishments of the Survey were the demarcation of the British territories in India, and the measurement of the height of the Himalayan giants - Everest, K2, and Kanchenjunga. The Survey had an enormous scientific impact as well, being responsible for one of the first accurate measurements of a section of an arc of longitude, and for measurements of the geodesic anomaly.
Neither the rebels who lead the 1857 revolt nor the princess had the concept of triangulation in their heads.
So let us not forget this gigantic achievement which was carried out by British overlords using the labor of millions of Indians both Hindu and Muslim.
It is THIS SURVEY which defined clearly the boundaries of the INDIAN subcontinent.
Alas we Indians both HINDUS and MUSLIMS and XTIANS and BUDDHISTS and JAINS still do not see the ENTIRE SUBCONTINENT as our home and NATION !!
Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning of India.
by Nawab Humayun on May 20, 2010 03:02 PM
It is true that the idea of India did take time to generate and that war of 1857 that obth Hindus and Muslims fought together could have taken India on another trajectory altogether, had it succeeded.And this is where I feel that even if Bahadur Shah Zafar had stayed it would have been only as a titular soveriegn; a symbolic monarch. Regarding the man himself, infact he was a prisoner of history,as there is a sense of impending doom about his life, for by his time, power had already been wrested by Company Bahadur and only the final nail was left. However he was a renowned scholar, a poet with a deep love for India..note his poetry.. Kitna badnaseeb hai Zafar ki do gaz zameen bhhi na mil sakee kou-he-yaar mein..We can only conjecture if a monarch with the sensitivity of poet could have proved to enlightened. My guess is in the affirmative..however these are only the 'ifs' and 'buts' of history.I do not deny that the Brisitsh had superior technology,and Indians did not even know to propogate thier ideas and take the revolution/rebellion to other parts,which is one of reasons it failed.Also you are displaying sense of exceptionalism when you say that only Hindus have considered entire sub.cont as one. Why only Hindus? have ocnsidered all of India as one?The ocncept of making Delhi the capital of all of Hindustan was Babur's dream, when he decided to stay and make India his home.It was fragmented even then.And what about Hindi,Hindu,Hindustan..Does this not contradict..
Re: Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning of India
by Nawab Humayun on May 20, 2010 03:15 PM
I agree with you that "Even today, a lot of people do not have a concept of UNITED INDIA", but the list you provide suggests that exceptionalism I mentioned earlier.Perhaps the Hindu right cannot see that its actions are also part of the problem and not solution, then we might see a true pan Indian identity emerge where you won' find these naxals and jihadists etc. That is Hindutva's blindspot. When an exclusivist vision is projected it is bound to alienate sections of society and that is what is hindering Indian unity and is not nationalist at all. "We need every INDIAN to get this unalterable picture in his head and destroy all separatists" This statement is pseudo-nationalism where one section feels it reserves the right to certify others' nationlist credentials and indeed dangerous to national unity.BTW I would want Pakistan&Bangadesh to merge with India.Would that be ok for you? Cheers &Take care
Re: Re: Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning of I
by Vishnu Sharma on May 20, 2010 09:06 PM
I want to emphasize that a Jihadist is different from a decent Muslim citizen of India who is indulging in honest productive work and trying to improve the lives of his family members through education and social upliftment.
A Jihadist has a pan Islamic vision which ties in which Taliban ideology and is encouraged by Indian Marxists.
Where as a Muslim Nationalist stays away from all this and regards India as his homeland and Indians as his fellow citizens.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning
by Nawab Humayun on May 20, 2010 10:33 PM
I believe that Indiam Muslims are a yet to-be-utilized national resource;one that can effectively project India's soft power enormously;especially in carrying the message of tolerance and moderation to the middle east much more effectively that what american muslims have done.India can teach a lot to the ME in harmonizing apparent societal contradictions,though admittedly a lot has to be done before this can happen.India has undersold itself geopolitically since independence.i feel that indian muslims can show the world and specifically the muslim world that there is an alternate to the mindless violence of Taliban;which is not jihad but nihilism.Thier success would be a powerful weapon against creeping extremism,and perhaps a source of inspiration for those on the other side of the border(pakistan) to introspect.Infact I believe that peace between India and Pakistan would only be possible;if at all it can,when the indian muslims community comes out of its morass and reaches a certain level of maturity,development and confidence when they can participate and contribute actively in this nation's growth.It is in the interest of Indian muslims and India at large that this community comes forward and contribute in the nations growth and also share its perspective to better the nation so that India; with all its apparent contradictions, is considered an example and a worthy leader morally. Goodluck! :-)
Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning of India.
by Aryan Singh on May 18, 2010 02:54 PM
More than 60% part of country came under Marathas(directly & Indirectly). Bengal's nawabs were paying chautha to Marathas, just before Britishers came.Almost whole Rajasthan, part of UP, Bihar was under Rajputs. Punjab was under Sikh Jats. Whole of Haryana, western Uttarpradesh and part of Rajasthan & MP was under Hindu Jat Kingdoms. So mainly three hindu castes were ruling more than 90% of india. Other ruling hindu castes like Gurjars, Nayars,Gowda etc. also had independence from muslim rule, just before Britishers came. Muslims held no more than 15-20% of rule.
Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning of India.
by Vishnu Sharma on May 18, 2010 02:35 AM
We NATIONAL DEMOCRATS think in SUBCONTINENTAL terms always.
Our definition of INDIA is always the ENTIRE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT.
NOTHING LESS is good enough for us.
We need the SOUTH ASIAN to be called and INDIAN and vice-versa.
All divisions which came after 1947 need to be done away with.
Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning of India.
by jaggu on May 18, 2010 03:05 PM
I wish you had read Veer Savarkar's 1908 treatise "1857 - the first war of independence" before saying so many stupid things!
Re: Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning of India
by Vishnu Sharma on May 18, 2010 11:53 PM
Veer Savarkar got all emotional when wrote that treatise.
He failed to realize that the revolt, although initiated by Mungal Pandey a Hindu, quickly took on a Jihadist character.
The battle cry of many mutineers was "AllaahuAkbaar" and they would rush at the British with swords drawn crying Deen Deen Deen e Islaamm.
So the entire revolt was 75% Muslims and 25% Hindus with Nana Saheb, Tantya Tope and Rani Laxmibai being the only dominant Hindu people.
The rest were all Jihadists. Even the siege of Delhi by Sikhs and British was directed against Jihadists in Delhi.
After the revolt the Mueslimm was population reduced by 65% in the Gangetic plain due to British reprisals which were directed against the Mueslimm community.
The British policy thereafter deliberately encouraged Hindus to get advanced education and this caused Hindus to become the dominant business people in India after that.
Know your history before displaying your ignorance before 200 million people !
Re: Re: Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning of I
by Nawab Humayun on May 19, 2010 11:50 AM
So why did Rani Jhansi and other hindu leaders choose to fight under Bahadur Shah Zafar as Sovereign?How is it that your view is not colored by emotionsand others views are? Could it not be that your attitudes are displaying the prejudices that are a result of that competitive communal politics that the British played after 1857 right until 1947,when they played one community againstother.The battle cry was AllahuAkbar and Har Har Mahadev used by Muslims and Hindus,so you are off the mark on this.The Sikhs did support the British, thats a fact and that had a lot to do with thier historical relationship with Mughals,but it could be argued that the idea of nationalism was not so crytallized like today and internal differences were explioted but then in thier spite the Sikhs lost more than any other community. After 1947,the lands they held dearNankanasahib ultimately went over to Muslims.Nevertheless 1857 was a joint struggle by both Hindus and Muslims and even if certian sections did not participate in it, like the Sikhs and the Nizam also,even then the fact that Hindus and Muslims of that day could ignore thier differences and forge together a joint action suggests thestirrings of national consciousness.Nehru in his book has said that the next logical step after 1857 would have been the move towards industrial activity,and the weakening of Mughal rule combined with a growing national spirit suggests a more organic and federal struture so a Meiji Japan was logical.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Great Trigonometric Survey was the beginning
by Vishnu Sharma on May 19, 2010 08:06 PM
What ever you are saying may be true, but the fact is that Bahadur Shah Zafar would never had made a firm a enlightened sovereign. A united India with the territorial extent we are seeing today would not have emerged if the revolt had succeeded.
What I am trying to say is that the revolt never had the slightest chance of succeeding because it was very localized and never involved ALL of INDIA.
Southern states were not even aware of what was happening.
We were immature people then and could not have UNITED INDIA.
The British were better organized, better supplied and had super fast communications in the form of TELEGRAPH.
Even today, a lot of people do not have a concept of UNITED INDIA : They want to break INDIA up to serve their vested political interests. They are the Marxists, Anarchists, Pacifists, Jihadists, Maoists and politicians who only are after people's votes.
Upright Hindus have always regarded THE ENTIRE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT including Burma as their homeland.
We need every INDIAN to get this unalterable picture in his head and destroy all separatists.
If you cannot agree with me on this, I cannot help you.
The Mughals unlike the British were not colonialists, who plundered India's wealth and transferred it to some other nation. The GDP of India during Mughal times was 25% of the world and by the time the British left it was 2%. They did come as invaders, but eventually settled here and got Indianized. They added an important chapter in India's multifaceted history, and thier rule brought India enough cultural, social and political stability, that it became a superpower of its age. They defended India well during thier time from foreign rule and from 1526 to 1739 it was well guarded, and only the later Mughals who gave it away as in Nadir Shah's and later ahmad Shah Abdali's invasion. The rule brought about India's cultural renaissance and the flowering of arts, languages, cuisine are a testimant to thier contribution in the generation of the idea of India.
It is amazing the poison that the RSS has injected in India so much so that a freedom struggle by both Hindus and Muslims is being dismissed and the British colonial rule being actually considered a godsend. Well all I can say is that had the 1857 revolt succeded, the Mughals would only have remained as titular heads, and power would have transfered to princes, and perhaps later to commoners, but importantly the division of India and the Hindu-Muslim strife would have been avoided. This has what has wasted an entire 20th century.
Re: British were colonialists unlike Mughals
by jaggu on May 17, 2010 09:27 PM
SO you want to differentiate between robbers and butchers? Ok tell me more...
Re: Re: British were colonialists unlike Mughals
by Nawab Humayun on May 18, 2010 03:13 PM
Tell me something, more than you and I it was Tantia Tope, Nana Phadnavis and Rani Laxmi Bai, who would have been aware of Mughal atrocities, and yet they chose to side and infact lead the revolt, with Bahadur Shah Zafar as their Sovereign. And we must not forget that one of the immediate causes of the revolt; aside from the Lee Enfield bullets was the banishment of Wajid Sli Shah. So am I missing sometihng here or does it say that the attitudes of today are not what was prevalent among Hindus and Muslims at that time, and inspite of the fractious past, that generation could overcome their differences and fight as one. So it can be that the attitudinal shift that we see today, primarily reflects the hangover of the bitterness of politics of post 1857-1947, and the post partition era chasm, as came up due to the Babri Mosque-rama Janambhoomi imbroglio.I would say it agian that had 1857 succeeded,India would have gotten its independence 90 years earlier without a loss of its rescouces for a century and would have progressed like Meiji Japan did which opened up roughly at that time,and themuslim insecurity that led to partition would have been avoided.India would have taken an entirely diff. trajectory from today.Nevertheless we must accpet our history and not seek to partition it as Hindu and Muslim, like Pakistan has done, who have removed all pre Muslim heritage.That would be denying our own heritage that includes the Taj Mahal,Red Fort,urdu-hindi and the sitar and thumri.
Re: British were colonialists unlike Mughals
by trader on May 17, 2010 06:05 PM
British Rule was important since it enabled the majority - Hindu Community to rule India -albeit through Democracy , after Independance.Although Marathas were the protectors of Mughal rule in 18th century,still the credit for majority Rule goes to British!!
Re: Re: British were colonialists unlike Mughals
by Aryan Singh on May 17, 2010 06:29 PM
Just before britishers came, most land was taken back by the Hindu Rulers. Religious atrocities of Aurangjeb forced Hindus to think about their survival and they fought for it. This resulted in destruction of Muslim Sultnat in most places. Punjab, Haryana, West UttarPradesh came under Jat rulers. Rajasthan under Rajputs and a very large portion of country under Marathas (some diretly and some indirectly). Britishers actually destroyed more Hindu states, than muslim. Just before britishers came to delhi, the mighty Moghuls of Agra/Delhi had just 3 villages under them.
Re: Re: Re: British were colonialists unlike Mughals
by Ashwin on May 17, 2010 10:57 PM
Had it not been for the British, India would have been under Muslim Rule. So we should thank the British. Mughals/Muslims could not digest the greatness of Indians/Hindus in every field & hence resorted to conversion. But for the traitor Jaisingh, Mughals would not have conquered India/Prithviraj. Even today, Indians are more dangerous than foreigners, for the development of INdia.
Re: Re: Re: Re: British were colonialists unlike Mughals
by Vishnu Sharma on May 18, 2010 02:24 AM
Actually by the time the British came Muslim rule had been fragmented and the Mahrattas and Sikhs were the dominant powers.
Yet these two would not have united at all because A) They could not speak each others language. B) They had no concept of the INDIAN SUBCONTINENT.
The SINGULAR event which heralded India's unity and territorial definition was the Great Trigonometric Survey which was a project surveying India throughout most of the 19th century. It was piloted in its initial stages by William Lambton, and later by George Everest. Among the many accomplishments of the Survey were the demarcation of the British territories in India, and the measurement of the height of the Himalayan giants - Everest, K2, and Kanchenjunga. The Survey had an enormous scientific impact as well, being responsible for one of the first accurate measurements of a section of an arc of longitude, and for measurements of the geodesic anomaly.
Neither the rebels who lead the 1857 revolt nor the princess had the concept of triangulation in their heads.
So let us not forget this gigantic achievement which was carried out by British overlords using the labor of millions of Indians both Hindu and Muslim.
It is THIS SURVEY which defined clearly the boundaries of the INDIAN subcontinent.
Alas we Indians both HINDUS and MUSLIMS and XTIANS and BUDDHISTS and JAINS still do not see the ENTIRE SUBCONTINENT as our home and NATION !!
Re: Re: Re: Re: British were colonialists unlike Mughals
by Nawab Humayun on May 18, 2010 03:09 PM
Tell me something, more than you and I it was Tantia Tope, Nana Phadnavis and Rani Laxmi Bai, who would have been aware of Mughal atrocities, and yet they chose to side and infact lead the revolt, with Bahadur Shah Zafar as their Sovereign. And we must not forget that one of the immediate causes of the revolt; aside from the Lee Enfield bullets was the banishment of Wajid Sli Shah. So am I missing sometihng here or does it say that the attitudes of today are not what was prevalent among Hindus and Muslims at that time, and inspite of the fractious past, that generation could overcome their differences and fight as one. So it can be that the attitudinal shift that we see today, primarily reflects the hangover of the bitterness of politics of post 1857-1947, and the post partition era chasm, as came up due to the Babri Mosque-rama Janambhoomi imbroglio.I would say it agian that had 1857 succeeded,India would have gotten its independence 90 years earlier without a loss of its rescouces for a century and would have progressed like Meiji Japan did which opened up roughly at that time,and themuslim insecurity that led to partition would have been avoided.India would have taken an entirely diff. trajectory from today.Nevertheless we must accpet our history and not seek to partition it as Hindu and Muslim, like Pakistan has done, who have removed all pre Muslim heritage.That would be denying our own heritage that includes the Taj Mahal,Red Fort,urdu-hindi and the sitar and thumri.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British were colonialists unlike Mughals
by Vishnu Sharma on May 18, 2010 11:59 PM
India could have taken the course of Meiji Japan only if an enlightened Hinduu emperor was made Emperor of India in 1857.
A muslimmm emperor like Bahadur SHah zafar was a wasted person who only indulged in poetry, nautch and hookah
Although we do not realize it, The British consolidated India and gave us the entire map which represents our nation today.
It was the British and Sardar Patel who need to be remembered.
We Indians instead of consolidating AND EXPANDING on what the British left us with in terms of territory are on the verge of loosing thid because we have a very weak central policy and not enough paramilitary forces to crush dissenters and splitists like bugs.
The British Gained for us Uttaranchal after defeating Nepal in the Anglo Gorkha wars in 1815, and Assam after defeating the Burmese in 1826.
If India had given priority to militarism in the 1950s itself we would have gained back all that was lost in the late 1940s substantially by 1965.
The idiot-Nehru who was so averse to India having an army frittered away all chances.
All Nations look towards expansion and consolidation and India cannot be an exception and holy cow in this regard.
We need to increase our armed strength to 10 million with 20 million in paramilitary forces, all armed to the teeth and driven by a FANATICAL NATIONALISTIC ZEAL !
The aim of the NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC WORKER'S PARTY is to bring about this mindset change in the average INDIAN man.
We sincerely believe in the adage EVERY MAN A SOLDIER.
You can be a political soldier like us NATIONAL DEMOCRATS or a blood and guts soldier like the one who defends our borders.
All the same, we want to harness the power of our youth and turn him into a fierce NATIONALIS
Akbar and Darasikoh (brother of Aurangjeb and Sultan of Agra) were great examples of treating hindus to the level of Muslims. There are good as well as bad examples. When talking about bravery and fight against muslim oppression, it were mainly Jats and Marathas. Most sikh rulers (including Maharaja Ranjit Singh) of punjab were Jats. Rajputs were marrying their girls to muslims to buy protection to their states. Only few has become known in common history, but most Rajputs did it. While Marathas like Shivaji had advantage of distance, it were Jats who survived and defeated them from very close distances, where they had very huge power. Bharatpur Jat king, Maharaja Surajmal defeated Ahmed Shah abdali three times, while Marathas lost their whole power in Panipat's second battle against him. None of the Rajput rulers helped Marathas. It was only Maharaja Surajmal, who spent Rs. 1 lakh to treat the survivors including Nana Saheb and Sadashiv Bhau's wife Parvati. See the appreciation letter from him about Maharaja Surajmal of Bharatpur.
Re: They were not all alike
by Troubled Ant on May 17, 2010 01:19 AM
That is true, i think sikhs are hindu, but only another path, and that path is started to save society from mozi invadors. Hats off to them.
Re: They were not all alike
by Troubled Ant on May 17, 2010 01:15 AM
Collectively, they were all alike. And now what terrorist attacks are? Again same, we are again under same 'Su1tan1 Sankat'.
