Re: Hope
by Rashid ibrahim on Jul 28, 2014 09:48 AM
just get your facts right, Mugals Invaded India, They took Pakistan and left behing equal number of muslims to form new pakistan
Re: Re: Hope
by Kuldip on Jul 28, 2014 11:24 AM
pl get yr facts right. Moghuls never took Pakistan.They never even intended to form a Muslim state.They did not take their loot out of the country,like the British did. They amalgamated with our culture not destroy it like the British did.
Re: Re: Re: Hope
by Rony Rathore on Jul 29, 2014 06:49 PM
@Kuldip, lets get your fact right too !!!
Mughals were better than other invaders but they have their vices too !!!
Mn's of women forcibly sent to harems for producing Islamic children !!! They were interested to obtain Hindu women in their harems to get the numbers. However, they strictly their stopped women to reach Hindu's (This happens even now). Later, Aurangjeb was very agresive !!! Other kings like Tipu, Haidar in Karnataka, the king of Hyderabad, etc were forciibbly doing c0nverrtion and abbduction of women !!!!
As a result of their combined effort, Undivided India before Ishlaameec invasion with 0% moseleem was replaced by 35% Mooselaem in 1700 AD ... had British delayed by a few years, India would have been an Isslomic country !!!!
Re: Hope
by MM on Jul 28, 2014 11:28 AM
Yes, If Hindus are highly "secular" and "advanced intellectuals", wish to follow western foot-steps, boy-girl friend, Valentine, live-in cultures and the parents are proud that their children are becoming "advanced"......then who is RSS to question them? Ha?
Re: Hope
by Rony Rathore on Jul 29, 2014 06:39 PM
@Moon Moon,
DO WE READ THE PROPER HISTORY ON INDIA ?
In our history the prominently shows Mughal and Pathan era with huge glorification. No mention about Islamic horibble genocides, 130 mn killed, mn's of women forcibly sent to harems for producing Islamic children !!!
Undivided India with 0% mouseleem was replaced by 35% Mooseleem ... had British delayed by a few years, India would have been an Isslamic country !!!!
Our glorious past with Gupta / Mourya / Chalukya and many ... are shortened down !!!
We have the right to know the truth!!!
We Indians have the right to know what was our true past !!!
is making Bharat centric, saffronization ? So are you accepting that India is Hindu nation ?
Anyway if this panel comes up with fictitious history, historians can object that moment and even approach the court. But why there is a lot of noise even as any attempt to review history books starts ?
We already have many outdated history concepts in school texts. Aryan Invasion theory is still taught in our schools even though this theory was proved to be wrong.
Re: unnecessary outcry
by piri on Jul 28, 2014 09:51 AM
Since you have proclaimed that the Aryan Invasion theory is proved be wrong, can you give some specifics?
If you are confident about what you have to say, you should have no hesitation in engaging in debate about it.
Re: Re: unnecessary outcry
by sri on Jul 28, 2014 10:21 AM
You are seriously lagging behind consistent with your usual closemindedness. Even Romila Thapar does not subscribe to the theory anymore and neither does Mike Witzel. The reasons are that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence in spite of decades of searching for it. Moreover, genetic studies distinguish the Indian from the European based on several markers. Only linguistic evidence remains and even that is not compelling beyond a point. What they are saying these days is that there was an admixture from central Asia and Persia and not from Europe. Happy Googling.
Re: Re: Re: unnecessary outcry
by piri on Jul 28, 2014 02:42 PM
Romila Thapar does not endorse the supposed Aryan Invasion Theory. She has on several occasions rebutted this theory put forward initially by Max Mueller.
It is only the Sangh Parivar half - historians who refuse to discard this phrase even after others have done so. This is because they wish to counter an imaginary foe with imaginary points and under cover of that, hope to divert the discourse from their weak areas - notably the fact that the Vedic period is evidentially dated to around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE while the Indus valley civilisation is dated long before that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: unnecessary outcry
by sri on Jul 28, 2014 07:01 PM
You are obsessed with the sangh parivar like the full-evangelists. There is no real archaeological data to prove that the vedic period coincides with the second millenium BCE. It has been the intention of European orientalists all along to date the vedic period to around 1000-2000 BCE to buttress their theory that it was the European Aryans who gave India a superior civilization and not the indigenous peoples. After dating the Indus valley to around 1600 BCE the same academic scumballs in the face of new findings have had no choice recently but to accept older dates for the civilization. But they havent given up and want to prove that some sophisticated Indians came from central Asia and so the claim of the indigenous peoples to the entirety of their culture is not valid. Just as they (Thapar included) changed their stripes about the AIT they are being forced by the weight of new data to consider alternative theories. These are not real intellectuals and are guided like you to formulate their theories out of hatred of Indian nationalists and the Hindus.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unnecessary outcry
by piri on Jul 28, 2014 10:21 PM
Instead of getting worked up and braying out the term intellectuals and throwing abuses, why dont you support your arguments with evidences that have been documented ?
Who has accepted older dates for the Vedic period other than historians of Sangh persuasion ?
What about the evolution of Sanskrit in hyndu literature and their assimilation of Proto Dravidian words and grammar over the centuries ?
The initial literature - the four Vedas - were written in what is called pure Sanskrit. The Upanishads, the Samhitas, the Smritis, etc. followed over the centuries. The Sanskrit used in these later texts (and also in the two epics) had liberal doses of Proto Dravidian words - words that were coined and first used in the latter stream of languages in the 1st millennium BCE.
The second big evidence for the Indus Valley civilisation (which has clearly been dated to 3500 to 2000 BCE) having nothing to do with the Vedas and other hyndu literature is that it was entirely urban in character. The Vedas and other hyndu texts, on the other hand, feature pastoral/rural societies and there are no big ciites in them, at least there is no mention anywhere in the vast texts of any big cities or their attendant features.
And why do you try to negate the evidentiary value of the presence of the horse in the sub-continent ?
Horse fossils in India date back to the 2nd millennium BCE only (at least all the fossils that have been clearly identified as those of horses).
Re: india must let go off their colonial past
by krishna v on Jul 28, 2014 09:01 AM
That the west is funding heavily in research and patenting. The same science that attracted students from entire globe. So one cannot say saffronization. The same sciences that have been clinically proved in western labs in best universities. If China, Japan, middle east, south american nations still continue to depend on their own rich ancient science and technology why not India. India must let go off their colonial past
