Our Turkic Connection

Netizen #110: ``Maybe they have realised that in unity we stand, divided (as we had been for centuries) we always suffered.``

I generally agree with what you have stated, in the first part of your paragraph. And I agree with the above statement. I think they have realized it. And I think if the current Indian boundaries hold, India may be one civilization, after people intermarry across current cultural boundaries, within India. Same will happen to Pakistan, if its boundaries hold.........

However, we are discussing history of India. Not the present day India (or Pakistan, for that matter). EU may become one civilization in a hundred years also, as people move around and inter-marry.......But it wasn`t one historically.......

Having said that, I think you need to define, in more detail, what you mean by, ``they.`` Whom does that include? Are you refering only to Indian Hindus? Or all Indians, including Muslims and Sikhs and Christians?

``THey first thing they did after capturing Constantinople was to convert the Catheral into a mosque. I don`t think any european kingdom would have done that.``

The amount of violence and killings and barbarism perpetrated by various Europeans is by far larger than what anyone else did. Converting one mosque to a Cathedral is wrong. But compare that to what Hitler did to Jews, just a few decades ago. Or the inquisitions. The largerst wars, by a large margin, of the last century were fought amongst various European nations. WW I and WW II being two examples.

Another point you may want to keep in mind. Muslims (and Jews) lived in Spain for 800 years. When the Christains conquered Spain, within a short time, they got rid of the Muslims and Jews.

How many Muslims and Jews live in Spain today? Virtually none. Compare that to the Muslim rule in India. Muslims ruled for 600-800 years, yet there are still far more Hindus in India, than Jews and Muslims in Spain .....In fact, Hindus are still the overwhelming majority in India. While Muslims are extinct form Spain. Had Ferdanand and Isabella coquered India, I think they may not have left behind any Hindus in India.........

One needs to keep everything in perspective. All kings were bad. Muslim kings were no worse than kings of any other religion. All were trying to expand their empires, and killed anyone and everyone......

vivek #109: ``it is only one culture with minor variations and it is a single civilization.``

Could you define some basis for this argument, other than religion and a few poems by someone, and a prayer. I can provide you with tons and tons of poetry and prayers that refer to all Muslims as one civilization. Do you think they are all part of one civilization?

A civilization has certain common bases. These include:

- Common geographic features
- Common language
- Common physical features
- Common dress, food, behaviors, etc.
- Common culture
etc.

While I certainly have a common culture with Indian Punjabis, I certainly don`t feel anything common with Indian Tamils, or Bengalis etc. They are as alien to me as someone from London or Frankfurt.........

re:#74 by Romair
One may have to dwell deep to find out what ails Islam. Why did a religion which is so simple in its message of peace and brotherhood, so simple to practice (shorn off all rituals that exist in Hinduism) become mired in violence?
One may find that a lot of it has to do with the way Islam was misused by various muslim rulers (in collusion with the mullahs). For eg, muslim rulers in India justified pillage of temples, massacre of priests as a duty demanded by Islam. In this, they were supported by the mullahs. Nowhere did mullahs say that this was wrong.
It is true that non-muslim rulers had also used similar tactics but this never became as well-entrenched in the system as it did with Islam. After all , which other holy book says it is O.K to kill a ``kafir``? However hard i might try, i can`t come up with even one Hindu king ever having used religion to justify a war. Warrior race fought each other regularly but did not usually unleash their wrath on the traders, farmers. It was beneath their glory to do so. It was also unique in Indian history that Islamic warriors would not spare anyone who came in the way, be it women or children. I think u have not been taught the correct history. Go to some renouned historians for proper understanding of the sufferings that hindus endured under 10 centuries of muslim rule.
Sridhar

Godot: You rascal, you!! How dare you write plain english!! :-)

But seriously, your point in #42 about the article (i.e. ``The sentences and paragraphs in this “article” are disjointed and don’t flow logically, as if all of it is put together mindlessly from various sources.``) is a valid one.

And NHK`s terse response to that (``You are welcome to disagree.``) is not.

(I assume NHK will read the above, and will be good enough to acknowledge the obvious, and apologize for his officious, invalid response.)

Having said that, I think NHK has picked an interesting topic, even if he has not taken the trouble to put the jumble of facts in some proper structure. Perhaps you could help overcome the obvious flaws in his article by writing another article on the subject...

Re: # 107


``Sub-Continent never had a, ``native`` culture. It still doesn`t. It has and had multiple cultures, languages, traditions, songs, dresses, physical features and thus civilizations. The only thing it has had, ``one`` (or two) of is religion. Punjabis and Bengalis, regardless of religion, have always been two different peoples. Even now. Religion is just one aspect of this whole civilizaitonal soup........... ``

You are right, it has multiple facets, hence Nehru said unity in diversity. but there are similarities too. most of the languages originated from Sanskrit.
maybe there was no British consolidaiton maybe the map of the sub-continent would been very different. definitely the independence struggle brought together various communities and bonded them together into Indian nationalism. But after British left why didn`t the entire country break up, just like the Ottoman territories (arab stateds), Yugoslavia, Austro-Hungary, central asians (after soviet demise), ukraine-russia-belarus.
Maybe they have realised that in unity we stand, divided (as we had been for centuries) we always suffered.


``That would be like trying to understand the history of Europe by using the present-day EU as a reference. If we use such a reference, then Europe was only invaded when Tariq-bin-Zayad landed on Jabal-al-Tariq (Gibraltor) to invade Spain. Napoleon and Hitler and Fredrick and the Prussians and Moussillini and the Czars etc. cease to be invaders. Since they were all Christians........... ``

turks were considered non-europeans. When turks were besieging Vienna, the fate of Christian Europe hanged in balance. Europeans heaved a sigh of relief when the turks were no longer a threat and were pushed back beyond bulgaria. but still rivalry b/t them continued in europe as well as in their colonies. Several of these countries had dynastic relations b/t them, do you think they would have had any blood relations with turks? Catherine the great was a german by birth. holy roman empire and spain were ruled by cousins. english had german queens.
remember that turks were not only ethnically non-european but by faith were not christians. THey first thing they did after capturing Constantinople was to convert the Catheral into a mosque. I don`t think any european kingdom would have done that. Also, it is said that at one time it was feared that they may be infallible and may do the same to Rome.

Romair #107,
``Sub-Continent never had a, ``native`` culture. It still doesn`t. It has and had multiple cultures, languages, traditions, songs, dresses, physical features and thus civilizations. ``

All through history people of india, although ruled by multiple kings have always regarded themselves as one people. Ancient poetry as well as religious prayer refer to their land as ``Jambudweep`` (India) meaning people always thought of themselves as one. While it does have multiple languages, songs, etc, it is only one culture with minor variations and it is a single civilization.

What a great article.

Netizen #106: ``Now look at the indian sub-continent, hasn`t the native culture (not only the hindu culture) been weakened by the alien one (lslam). For whatever be the reasons.``

I pretty much agree with most of what you have stated, except the above.

Sub-Continent never had a, ``native`` culture. It still doesn`t. It has and had multiple cultures, languages, traditions, songs, dresses, physical features and thus civilizations. The only thing it has had, ``one`` (or two) of is religion. Punjabis and Bengalis, regardless of religion, have always been two different peoples. Even now. Religion is just one aspect of this whole civilizaitonal soup...........

Islam is not a culture. It is a religion. Same with Hinduism. A Christian living in Lahore is culturally quite different from a Christian living in Holland. Punjab (including its historical NWFP part) is closer to Afghanistan than it is to Patna. Punjabis look more like Afghanis and Sindhis than they look like Biharis. Ghaznavi would have had to travel a shorter distance to get to Taxila than Ashoka had to. Punjab could have just as easily been part of a British empire that extended from Taxila to Basra, than British empire that extended from Taxila to Dhaka.

One cannot understand the history of the Sub-Continent using the geography and civics of the present day India (or Pakistan). That would be like trying to understand the history of Europe by using the present-day EU as a reference. If we use such a reference, then Europe was only invaded when Tariq-bin-Zayad landed on Jabal-al-Tariq (Gibraltor) to invade Spain. Napoleon and Hitler and Fredrick and the Prussians and Moussillini and the Czars etc. cease to be invaders. Since they were all Christians..........

Re: # 103

``Actually Chandragupta, connived with Alexander, to get Alexander to attack the Ganges area``

i visited that site, never read in history (books/internet) that Chandragupt ever met Alexander. read at other sites that it is a legend that they met but probably Alex died even before Chan. was born.

I guess their is too much of info on the net some right some not so eg one describinghim as a kshtriya.

``Punjab was ruled by non-Punjabis, baring a few short intervals``

but thats with most of north india. most of the time the power was centred at Delhi. sher shah suri was ethnically a afghan not a punjabi.



``There was no nation. Nothing like what exists today. I am quite sure the people he had to invade to create this, ``nation`` would not be too happy with his invasions. They did fight him, and resisted him and his descendants. Thousands and thousands of them lost their lives, while being invaded by the Mauryans. ``

same thing has happened in China, england, among turks, mongols. i.e. consolidation. alexander won against Porus but could not have won against the might of the entire consolidate power.


``Yes, they did. I never said Punjabis had no religion. I also didn`t say Hindus from the East invaded non-Hindus. In fact, I said Hindus invaded Hindus. That is the whole point I am trying to make (apparently quite unsuccessfully with most of our Hindu colleagues on this site), i.e. one cannot simply categorize invasions, based on the religion of the invader, or the religion of the local invadees. If a Hindu invaded Punjab, he is as much an invader as if a Muslim invaded Punjab. And vice-versa. `

the way it was said that the punjabis were invaded by hindus made me wonder. It was not that simple. Rajputs invading each other is very different than an alien culture/religion like ghouri/ghazni/mongols invading. Do you equate the wars between the Native indians to the expansion of the white settlers. don`t you there is a difference here. Don`t you think it altered the way of life, infact had a devastating influence on the Native american way of life who lost their land and culture. Now look at the indian sub-continent, hasn`t the native culture (not only the hindu culture) been weakened by the alien one (lslam). For whatever be the reasons. wasn`t british rule different than the one that existed before that? according to your theory it should not have mattered as nawabs/rajas were already fighting each other.

NHK #45: “Godot # 42 You are welcome to disagree.”

No, NHK, my post was NOT a disagreement. By saying that you are merely trying to get out of an exceedingly poor piece of crap that no one other than Chowk would publish. You are a shameless Chowk Resident Plagiarist and a bad writer to boot. Just scanning through your “article” one can see which parts are cut-and-paste and which sentences are inserted with your poor English. That’s not my disagreement. That’s my commentary on this crap. My disagreement is with your suffocating emphasis on ethnicity. Your overemphasis on your ethnicity reflects a deep inferiority complex, and your plagiarized articles and exceedingly poor command of English language reflect your intellectual dishonesty and deficiency. As I said, if it weren’t for Chowk, no self-respecting publication would give your artciles time of day.

Re: # 99

`` its muslims who have done all the harm..
and before them.... every thing was alright.... and we were such a great nation... with such high morals and muslims destroyed every thing.... ``

not all the harm but a significant harm. Europe would been something like Albania/Kosovo if Sobieski had not have thwarted the Turks or the Frankish Knights would not have defeated Abdul Rehman.

Netizen #96: ``Even before Chanakya nurtured Chandragupt, he had pleaded with the Patliputra (Magadha) princes, which at that time was the largest/strongest kingdom, to help ``punjabi`` king Poru against Alexander. He was mocked at and thrown out of the court.
...........Fortunately Alexander died and Chandragupt was able to defeat Selucus, Greek general to unify the kingdoms under one banner.``

Actually Chandragupta, connived with Alexander, to get Alexander to attack the Ganges area, i.e. Chandragupta allied with an invader to invade his homeland (from which he had been exiled). Once Alexander died, then Chandragupta defeated the Greeks, with whom he had initially allied himself with. Like all kings, of the time, he seems to have been quite the opportunist............

``according to Plutarch (Alexander, cap. 62), encouraged him to invade the Ganges kingdom by capitalizing on the extreme unpopularity of the reigning monarch. During exile he assembled a large force of the warlike clans of the northwest frontier, and on the death of Alexander attacked the Macedonian garrisons and conquered Punjab.`` http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya

``He nurtured Chandragupt to realise his dream of a nation streching from Punjab to present day Bengal.``

There was no nation. Nothing like what exists today. I am quite sure the people he had to invade to create this, ``nation`` would not be too happy with his invasions. They did fight him, and resisted him and his descendants. Thousands and thousands of them lost their lives, while being invaded by the Mauryans.

If Chandragupta wanted to establish a nation, it was just to propogate his own kingdom. Much like Napoleon and Babar and Victoria and Genghis and any other king. I certainly would not refer to the invasions and occupations of other peoples` land under the phrase, ``his dream of a nation.`` One person`s dream of a nation, based on conquering others, generally results in another group`s subjugation.........

All these people were kings extending their empires. I doubt they even treated their local subjects, too well. It is, thus, wrong to try to portray any of them - Muslim or Hindu - as some sort of flagbearers for present-day India or Pakistan...............

Re: # 98

``In the Deccan the Buddhist Kings were superseded by a Rajput dynasty, the Chalukyas, who were protagonists of Brahmanism. ``

As i have written previously that Rajuputs did believei n Vedic traditions and the caste system, but my question was about ``king after king came into power by Brahmin help``. Kig Philip of Spain was a great protagonist of Catholicism but that doesn`t mean the catholic priest helped him to come to power.


``had acquired legal and religious right to kill the unwanted king ``

you have quoting an unknown person who says that Brahmins have twisted and distorted the original scriptures. Even if it is taken for granted, no where is cliams the above statement of Brahmins acquiring legal and religious right to kill an unwanted king.

I neve heard of these statements, even from the ultra-commies hence was very curious.

Looking for info about Brahmins on ambedkar.org is like looking for info on jews in Hamas.org


``Raja Jaichand of Kanouj is said to have invited Shahabuddin to attack Prithvi Raj of Delhi``

``said to have`` has a subtle difference in writing but a lot more in reality. Jaichand just didn`t come to Prithviraj`s help, Prithviraj was defeated and later year (?) Jaichand himself became a victim of Ghouri. Anyway Jaichand was not a Brahmin.

Re: # 99


there is systematic introduction of bais in the History .....and supposedly neutral sources like wikipedia are no exception....

Consider for example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_invasion_of_India

..........and also the talk page regarding this article.....

Netizen #96: ``can i know what is the source of your information?``

This information is all over the place. I am surprised you are unaware of it. Go to wikepedia and do a search on punjab and Chandragupta. Or on any other siteMy exact quotes were from http://www.livius.org/man-md/mauryas/mauryas.html.

``During Alexanders invasion, jhelum/surrounding areas were ruled by Poru and Ambhi et al. Wouldn`t they be forefathers of the present punjabis?``

Yes they would be forefathers. Including perhaps (still researching) the forefathers of a minor portion or so of my family. However, after the Greek invasion, Punjab was ruled by non-Punjabis, baring a few short intervals, like Ranjit Singh (and arguably Sher Shah). This is the period I am talking about, i.e. the last 2000-2500 years or so. The forefathers of present day Punjabis are thus a combination of those, ``locals`` from pre-Porus areas, and those who came in as invaders and ruled the area, and married into the locals.

``didn`t they belong to the sanata dharma (what is called hinduism now)? so how can you say that hindus from the east invaded punjabis (with no religion, definitely not hindusim, according to you)?``

Yes, they did. I never said Punjabis had no religion. I also didn`t say Hindus from the East invaded non-Hindus. In fact, I said Hindus invaded Hindus. That is the whole point I am trying to make (apparently quite unsuccessfully with most of our Hindu colleagues on this site), i.e. one cannot simply categorize invasions, based on the religion of the invader, or the religion of the local invadees. If a Hindu invaded Punjab, he is as much an invader as if a Muslim invaded Punjab. And vice-versa.

If we only use religion as a criteria, then Hitler`s invasion of France is not an invasion, since both were Christian countries. Or, closer to home, the Afghan/Central Asian invasions of Northern India would not be invasions, since they were between Mulsim ruling dynasties.........and many of the locals were Muslim, as well. Iraq`s war with Iran, had Muslims on both sides. etc. etc.

One of the bloodiest killing sprees, and one of the most violent wars, South Asia has ever seen, proportionately speaking with respect to the population of the area, is Ashoka`s conquest of Kalinga (in present-day Orrissa). It was only after carrying out such killings that Ashoka switched to Bhuddhism and non-violence........Should we glorify Ashoka`s actions in Kalinga, since there were Hindus on both sides?

All these invasions and killings need to be studied objectively. Unfortunately, people glorify those of their own religion, and demonize only those of other religions.........A first step in achieving this objectivity is to stop thinking of historic South Asia, within the geographies of present-day India and Pakistan. All of South Asia was rarely ever one country. It was only one, ``country`` only under Ashoka and British. And both of them had to carry out large invasions, and killings and occupations and subjugations to achieve this.........

India and Pakistan, are in fact, both a product of invasions - invasions from Hindus, Christians and Muslims. Had the area been allowed to develop organically (even, as late as after the demise of the Mughals, i.e. the British had not invaded), India and Pakistan probably would be multiple different countries today..........much like Europe........

the purpose of My quoting all these....is ....I am really pissed off by the consitent ..
harping of the theme by Indians that... its muslims who have done all the harm..
and before them.... every thing was alright.... and we were such a great nation... with such high morals and muslims destroyed every thing....


.....We unfortunatley are not well versed with the ancient Indian History.....and due to this ignorance .....They get away with all types of allegations and distortions in history


So I just did a little googling...... and honestly...... Look ..... how many skeleton
One can find In their cup boards....



Personally .... I give a Damn about who invaded who ........and why....
the bottom line question is .....Where are we Now......?...
True ..... an objective study of history could help us understand that.... But when you
constantly try to give just One version...... then some thing is not right....!!

.....I agree with Romair an Invador is an Invador .....and there has been invasion...
from from Outside [ arayan, ....muslims etc ..etc...etc...] and from within [ like that of Ashoka ]

All such invasion brought nothing but death and destruction .....even in our present time
There is an invasion going On [ USA invading Iraq and Afghanistan ] ....
now without going into its being right or wrong..... the result is more than
100,000 innocent lifes have been lost....for not fault of theirs....