When you compare that to the 300,000 British killed it kind of puts things into perspective.
yeah... they were shit at hiding?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
however Indian Summer...i do agree with you that India had been the subject of invasion right up until the declaration of independence of India. The Indus Valley Civilisation, one of the first civilisations of the world, was overrun by Iranians. From that time on the rich lands of India were always in competition.
But partition, in my opinion, was one of the worst atrocities in history. I'm entitled to that.
Constructed memory is a problem in many countries, not just the ones who were the cause of the world wars.
In Australia we celebrate ANZAC Day, a day which most aussies remember war veterans who proudly fought in Gallipoli, but we lost the battle significantly. I bet half of us Australians wouldnt even know we lost that particular battle
instead of 'celebrating' ANZAC day, shouldnt it be a 'commemoration'.... its hard to 'celebrate' a slaughter isnt it...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
waging war and causing genocides are not the same thing. alexander and hitler are two different animals.
if its war you are talking about, then yes, pretty much everyone. if its deliberate hacking of people in village after village you are talking about, then i stand by my point.
War is the central element here. Modern scale genocide is a result of modern warfare and weapons. So I dont want to put a too big of a distinction between the two.
well it certainly wasnt all the european peoples. it was mainly the 6 colonial countries and then the would-be colonial, germany.
But we would, and had the drive to do so in our day. Why do you think norway own so many deserted islands in the arctic and antarctic? We knew we couldn't compete, but we wanted to expand as well. We also had a tiny slave colony back in the day.
if you mean rome, yes the first to mordenise. if you mean entire europe, then i have to differ.
of the 4 peoples i mentioned the ones to cause the first widespread mass murder were the mongols.
Mongols slaughtered, to be sure, but that would be "war" as you would have it. Modern genocide is something else entirely, both in quality and scale. And europe was the first to modernize (17-1800s) so we were the first to get access to the tools necessary for doing it. Mass murder and genocide isn't necessarily the same either. For a read about it, I recommend Bauman's "Modernity and Holocaust" for the machinations and underlying processes.
i find it very useful. at least that way we know that all of humanity wasnt to blame but only certain pockets. thats why i different from you said "european peoples" caused a lot of damage - cos that makes it seem like all of europe was colonial and/or nazi. when it was about 7-8 countries out of 40 odd.
And then miss the entire point that should be "and beware you dont do it yourself, because you too are very much capable of it". All of europe was colonial, if they were in a position to be. If nothing else, some islands in the pacific or caribbean would do. Drawing that distinction puts it at a safe distance where you can put it out of your mind, while the focus should be on the very human ability to do such things, and that ability is not exclusive to certain peoples...
i would feel just as smug had i been vietnamese, scandinavian, or from bolivia. these arnt the countries who did the attacking or mass killing.
But is that because we are so morally superior, or because we never were in a position to? Large difference there. I dont feel smug being norwegian, although according to you, I could. I have read enough history, world and norwegian to know we're no different at all. But we have never had power. Other than over our native people in the north which we sterilized, outlawed and oppressed for houndreds of years, thinking them no better than animals.
I know we're no better, and that the problem is general with humans. Just which group of humans get the power to be able to do such things vary, but do not think it's an intrinsic thing about certain coutnries and people, that your or my people are exempt from. There-in lies danger...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The Muslims and Hindus in India are a fine example of attempted genocide. Wiping out an entire religion can be classed as genocide and that is exactly what was attempted during Partition.
The Indians have always been involved in violent acts, right from the beginning of the Mughal Empire. The Mughals, Marathas and whoever else were always warring with each other. Over history, every race or religion has had their attempt at power.
you have your brain in your arse.
the mughals are people from turkmenistan who cvame and ruled india after killing as many hindus as they could. pretty much the way today's australins rule australia after wiping out - in this case entirely - the natives.
the marathas were indians to the core for all known history and they offered tremendous challenge to the mughals and the other muslims (who were with no exception from arabia or afghanistan or turkmenistan or iran or uzbegistan etc. ie. all invaders). if you are saying that challenging an invader/oppressor is a crime then you are insane.
but you are right in your first paraghapgh tho - wiping out an entire religion is indeed an attempt to genocide and thats what the muslim rulers from various invading countries tried to do. it wasnt attempted during partition - it was attempted from the 7th century AD when the first arabs came to india - and continued till partition - when all the bottled up animosity of both sides (hindus for having received all that stick for 100 years and having to leave behind a land that was always theirs - and muslims for having failed to establish "dar-ul-islam' in india) spilled out.
get your facts right.
and read this page - i could supply 100s, including history books from all top american colleges - but for now only this -
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
India was already in tatters when the British arrived....thanks to the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb....if Aurangzeb had kept on the same path as the great Emperor Akbar India would have beaten off the British. The fact that Aurangzeb had weakened the empire made it easier for the British to set up and colonise...no in that regard you are wrong
no india wasnt in tatters at all. at least we still had 25% of the world economic output up till year 1800. i can show you research papers by the HIER (harvard institute of economic research) to that effect.
the british filled their "raj indian army" with muslims dear, to rule over us.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
the mughals are people from turkmenistan who cvame and ruled india after killing as many hindus as they could. pretty much the way today's australins rule australia after wiping out - in this case entirely - the natives.
the marathas were indians to the core for all known history and they offered tremendous challenge to the mughals and the other muslims (who were with no exception from arabia or afghanistan or turkmenistan or iran or uzbegistan etc. ie. all invaders). if you are saying that challenging an invader/oppressor is a crime then you are insane.
but you are right in your first paraghapgh tho - wiping out an entire religion is indeed an attempt to genocide and thats what the muslim rulers from various invading countries tried to do. it wasnt attempted during partition - it was attempted from the 7th century AD when the first arabs came to india - and continued till partition - when all the bottled up animosity of both sides (hindus for having received all that stick for 100 years and having to leave behind a land that was always theirs - and muslims for having failed to establish "dar-ul-islam' in india) spilled out.
get your facts right.
and read this page - i could supply 100s, including history books from all top american colleges - but for now only this -
question - why are the "hindu kush" mountains called so and what do they mean??
well if youre saying the indians are not the mughals...which they obviously did not originate in Indian, then who are the indians? The Indus Valley Civilisation was taken over by Arians from the Iranian Plateau. This would mean that the Indians have an Arian background wouldnt it? It is possible though that the Indus Valley inhabitants did migrate east but it is yet to be proven
instead of 'celebrating' ANZAC day, shouldnt it be a 'commemoration'.... its hard to 'celebrate' a slaughter isnt it...
it would be an far better idea to "commemorate" the aboriginal peoples of australia, who were at the receiving and of a genocide.
someone said how the 200000 british deaths pale in comparism to the deaths in soviet russia. i ask, dont the deaths of a few australians in gallipoli seem trivial in comparism to a all out genocide.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
no india wasnt in tatters at all. at least we still had 25% of the world economic output up till year 1800. i can show you research papers by the HIER (harvard institute of economic research) to that effect.
the british filled their "raj indian army" with muslims dear, to rule over us.
harvard paper....your paper is probably opiniated, supporting a particular argument, as most papers do!
no india wasnt in tatters at all. at least we still had 25% of the world economic output up till year 1800. i can show you research papers by the HIER (harvard institute of economic research) to that effect.
the british filled their "raj indian army" with muslims dear, to rule over us.
the facts are that the mughal empire was breaking up when the british arrived. The marathas were rebelling and other states were also starting to break away from the mughal empire. My argument is that if Aurangzeb did not reintroduce the jizya and actually supported the hindu faith like Akbar than the mughals could have defeated the british
well if youre saying the indians are not the mughals...which they obviously did not originate in Indian, then who are the indians? The Indus Valley Civilisation was taken over by Arians from the Iranian Plateau. This would mean that the Indians have an Arian background wouldnt it? It is possible though that the Indus Valley inhabitants did migrate east but it is yet to be proven
i am saying the mughals are not indians, not indians are not mughals (which is also true).
as for the "indus valley civilization" thing you keep refering about - and the way they were "taken care of" by iranians... i cant really explain all of that here even if i tried. you could see the wiki entry on "aryan invasion theory" or read this book.
if you have questions, then send me a pm, i shall supply you all the links.
FACT - the first use of the word "arya" was in india, in a language called sanskrit, and means "noble". the chronologically second use of the word was in "aryana/airan/iran" or persia (who are the desendants of "parasu" - which is where persia gets its name from). the other people/countries who get their names from the root word "arya" are the germanic people called "allans" and the country/people called "ireland". the first time the word "hindu" was used, was when the iranians/persians/"descandants of parasu", started calling the people on the eastern side of the "sindhu" (indus) river, as the "hindus", since the sanskrit "s" is equivalent to the iranian "h". before that the word hindu never existed. we called ourselves "arya" and our "ism" was called "sanatan dharma" = (eternal duty)
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Well, I agree, Hindus have been on the recieving end of many wrong doings.
as aslo have been guilty of one of history's greatest crimes - inflicted on its own people, (like the commie holocousts) - the caste system. i have no defence for that.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
i am saying the mughals are not indians, not indians are not mughals (which is also true).
as for the "indus valley civilization" thing you keep refering about - and the way they were "taken care of" by iranians... i cant really explain all of that here even if i tried. you could see the wiki entry on "aryan invasion theory" or read this book.
if you have questions, then send me a pm, i shall supply you all the links.
FACT - the first use of the word "arya" was in india, in a language called sanskrit, and means "noble". the chronologically second use of the word was in "aryana/airan/iran" or persia (who are the desendants of "parasu" - which is where persia gets its name from). the other people/countries who get their names from the root word "arya" are the germanic people called "allans" and the country/people called "ireland". the first time the word "hindu" was used, was when the iranians/persians/"descandants of parasu", started calling the people on the eastern side of the "sindhu" (indus) river, as the "hindus", since the sanskrit "s" is equivalent to the iranian "h". before that the word hindu never existed. we called ourselves "arya" and our "ism" was called "sanatan dharma" = (eternal duty)
well wait and see until they decipher the Indus language...then we will know who the Indians are
harvard paper....your paper is probably opiniated, supporting a particular argument, as most papers do!
the raj army also had hindus....
its not my paper. read history of economics or keep shut. i can supply the research paper if you want.
its a known fact that till 1800, china and india shared 50 percent of the world's wealth.
china always had the monolopy on silk. we on spices. we have been the leading producer of pepper for a mere 4000 years now. dig?? read Pliny and Arrian (roman historians) and see how they blamed india for making rome hedonistic (we dupmed our surplus goods on rome, the way china dupms on usa today). or better yet read a bit of hisroty of economics and see which countries were traditionally rich and which werent.
and raj army didnt have many hindus till Veer Sarvarkar realised just what the british were doing (filling up the raj army with muslims) and recruited loads of hindus in the raj army.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
as aslo have been guilty of one of history's greatest crimes - inflicted on its own people, (like the commie holocousts) - the caste system. i have no defence for that.
yeah dont know much about that
slightly off topic...i was watching a movie not long ago about the British Raj and how the sepoys rebelled against them....cant remember the name, but i suppose it wasnt a bad insight into what happened there
its not my paper. read history of economics or keep shut. i can supply the research paper if you want.
its a known fact that till 1800, china and india shared 50 percent of the world's wealth.
china always had the monolopy on silk. we on spices. we have been the leading producer of pepper for a mere 4000 years now. dig?? read Pliny and Arrian (roman historians) and see how they blamed india for making rome hedonistic (we dupmed our surplus goods on rome, the way china dupms on usa today). or better yet read a bit of hisroty of economics and see which countries were traditionally rich and which werent.
of course u fucking had a nice wealth base.....fucking the majority of the trade from east indies to europe went through india....nothing to do with the crumbling of the mughal empire though....it wasnt a lack of wealth that brought down the mughal empire it was too many differing attitudes towards your fucked up religions (muslim and hindu)
the facts are that the mughal empire was breaking up when the british arrived. The marathas were rebelling and other states were also starting to break away from the mughal empire. My argument is that if Aurangzeb did not reintroduce the jizya and actually supported the hindu faith like Akbar than the mughals could have defeated the british
yes and we dont differentiate between mughals and british. both were oppressors and both were invaders. one caused religion based carnage and another caused economic loot.
marathas (sachin tendulkar is a maratha) were amongst the only indians who had managed to weather the islamic onslaught and keep fighting the muslims till the last day and then fought the british too.
akbar never supported the hindu faith at all - he wanted to make islam more acceptable to hindus, by taking/inducting a piece or two from hinduism into his brand of islam, the way the missionaries do it all over the world (eg - in scandivavia the churches are built on/like viking temples. the festival of christmas likewise has nothign to do with Christ. it is an act of christianity inducting the pagan concept of celebrating the winter solstice, to make christianity more acceptable. btw, the date for christmas, was also chosen in similar ways - 25th december is when Mithras was supposedly born, and the cult of Mithras was very popular in rome).
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
of course u fucking had a nice wealth base.....fucking the majority of the trade from east indies to europe went through india....nothing to do with the crumbling of the mughal empire though....it wasnt a lack of wealth that brought down the mughal empire it was too many differing attitudes towards your fucked up religions (muslim and hindu)
The indian sub-continent had one of the wealthiest economies in the world before the British took control of it, and re-directed the wealth back to blighty. A bit like the way the U.S takes control of foreign economic wealth today and redirects it back into American business under the guise of the free market, and with the help of corrupt puppet regimes and officials, and the threat of military intervention - i.e, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq.
yes and we dont differentiate between mughals and british. both were oppressors and both were invaders. one caused religion based carnage and another caused economic loot.
marathas (sachin tendulkar is a maratha) were amongst the only indians who had managed to weather the islamic onslaught and keep fighting the muslims till the last day and then fought the british too.
akbar never supported the hindu faith at all - he wanted to make islam more acceptable to hindus, by taking/inducting a piece or two from hinduism into his brand of islam, the way the missionaries do it all over the world (eg - in scandivavia the churches are built on/like viking temples. the festival of christmas likewise has nothign to do with Christ. it is an act of christianity inducting the pagan concept of celebrating the winter solstice, to make christianity more acceptable. btw, the date for christmas, was also chosen in similar ways - 25th december is when Mithras was supposedly born, and the cult of Mithras was very popular in rome).
by my reading akbar employed hindus under him and even married a hindu princess....yeah some say he did it so he could prosper a lot more, but most argue, and i also argue, that akbar wanted muslims and hindus to live in peace together
Indian summer...you are a very biased Hindu...maybe take an objective stance once in a while instead of cuttting down other peoples opinions...just because u are indian does not make you right.
of course u fucking had a nice wealth base.....fucking the majority of the trade from east indies to europe went through india....nothing to do with the crumbling of the mughal empire though....it wasnt a lack of wealth that brought down the mughal empire it was too many differing attitudes towards your fucked up religions (muslim and hindu)
not only did it go through india - it CAME from india. all the raw materials. most of the rest came from china.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
The indian sub-continent had one of the wealthiest economies in the world before the British took control of it, and re-directed the wealth back to blighty. A bit like the way the U.S takes control of foreign economic wealth today and redirects it back into American business under the guise of the free market, and with the help of corrupt puppet regimes and officials, and the threat of military intervention - i.e, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq.
i know that...im not argueing against that
read my posts
im argueing that the break up of the mughal empire made it easier for the british to colonise!
The break up wasnt caused by a lack of wealth beacues they were wealthy, it was caused by trouble amongst the peoples attitudes
i know that...im not argueing against that
read my posts
im argueing that the break up of the mughal empire made it easier for the british to colonise!
The break up wasnt caused by a lack of wealth beacues they were wealthy, it was caused by trouble amongst the peoples attitudes
Comments
yeah... they were shit at hiding?
But partition, in my opinion, was one of the worst atrocities in history. I'm entitled to that.
instead of 'celebrating' ANZAC day, shouldnt it be a 'commemoration'.... its hard to 'celebrate' a slaughter isnt it...
obviously....
But we would, and had the drive to do so in our day. Why do you think norway own so many deserted islands in the arctic and antarctic? We knew we couldn't compete, but we wanted to expand as well. We also had a tiny slave colony back in the day.
Mongols slaughtered, to be sure, but that would be "war" as you would have it. Modern genocide is something else entirely, both in quality and scale. And europe was the first to modernize (17-1800s) so we were the first to get access to the tools necessary for doing it. Mass murder and genocide isn't necessarily the same either. For a read about it, I recommend Bauman's "Modernity and Holocaust" for the machinations and underlying processes.
And then miss the entire point that should be "and beware you dont do it yourself, because you too are very much capable of it". All of europe was colonial, if they were in a position to be. If nothing else, some islands in the pacific or caribbean would do. Drawing that distinction puts it at a safe distance where you can put it out of your mind, while the focus should be on the very human ability to do such things, and that ability is not exclusive to certain peoples...
But is that because we are so morally superior, or because we never were in a position to? Large difference there. I dont feel smug being norwegian, although according to you, I could. I have read enough history, world and norwegian to know we're no different at all. But we have never had power. Other than over our native people in the north which we sterilized, outlawed and oppressed for houndreds of years, thinking them no better than animals.
I know we're no better, and that the problem is general with humans. Just which group of humans get the power to be able to do such things vary, but do not think it's an intrinsic thing about certain coutnries and people, that your or my people are exempt from. There-in lies danger...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
you have your brain in your arse.
the mughals are people from turkmenistan who cvame and ruled india after killing as many hindus as they could. pretty much the way today's australins rule australia after wiping out - in this case entirely - the natives.
the marathas were indians to the core for all known history and they offered tremendous challenge to the mughals and the other muslims (who were with no exception from arabia or afghanistan or turkmenistan or iran or uzbegistan etc. ie. all invaders). if you are saying that challenging an invader/oppressor is a crime then you are insane.
but you are right in your first paraghapgh tho - wiping out an entire religion is indeed an attempt to genocide and thats what the muslim rulers from various invading countries tried to do. it wasnt attempted during partition - it was attempted from the 7th century AD when the first arabs came to india - and continued till partition - when all the bottled up animosity of both sides (hindus for having received all that stick for 100 years and having to leave behind a land that was always theirs - and muslims for having failed to establish "dar-ul-islam' in india) spilled out.
get your facts right.
and read this page - i could supply 100s, including history books from all top american colleges - but for now only this -
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html
and maybe these books -
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/hhrmi/
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/htemples1/
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/htemples2/
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/mla/
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/tlmr/
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/mssmi/
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/
question - why are the "hindu kush" mountains called so and what do they mean??
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
fair enough
the british filled their "raj indian army" with muslims dear, to rule over us.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
well if youre saying the indians are not the mughals...which they obviously did not originate in Indian, then who are the indians? The Indus Valley Civilisation was taken over by Arians from the Iranian Plateau. This would mean that the Indians have an Arian background wouldnt it? It is possible though that the Indus Valley inhabitants did migrate east but it is yet to be proven
someone said how the 200000 british deaths pale in comparism to the deaths in soviet russia. i ask, dont the deaths of a few australians in gallipoli seem trivial in comparism to a all out genocide.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
harvard paper....your paper is probably opiniated, supporting a particular argument, as most papers do!
the raj army also had hindus....
Well, I agree, Hindus have been on the recieving end of many wrong doings.
the facts are that the mughal empire was breaking up when the british arrived. The marathas were rebelling and other states were also starting to break away from the mughal empire. My argument is that if Aurangzeb did not reintroduce the jizya and actually supported the hindu faith like Akbar than the mughals could have defeated the british
i am saying the mughals are not indians, not indians are not mughals (which is also true).
as for the "indus valley civilization" thing you keep refering about - and the way they were "taken care of" by iranians... i cant really explain all of that here even if i tried. you could see the wiki entry on "aryan invasion theory" or read this book.
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/index.htm
if you have questions, then send me a pm, i shall supply you all the links.
FACT - the first use of the word "arya" was in india, in a language called sanskrit, and means "noble". the chronologically second use of the word was in "aryana/airan/iran" or persia (who are the desendants of "parasu" - which is where persia gets its name from). the other people/countries who get their names from the root word "arya" are the germanic people called "allans" and the country/people called "ireland". the first time the word "hindu" was used, was when the iranians/persians/"descandants of parasu", started calling the people on the eastern side of the "sindhu" (indus) river, as the "hindus", since the sanskrit "s" is equivalent to the iranian "h". before that the word hindu never existed. we called ourselves "arya" and our "ism" was called "sanatan dharma" = (eternal duty)
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
as aslo have been guilty of one of history's greatest crimes - inflicted on its own people, (like the commie holocousts) - the caste system. i have no defence for that.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
well wait and see until they decipher the Indus language...then we will know who the Indians are
its not my paper. read history of economics or keep shut. i can supply the research paper if you want.
its a known fact that till 1800, china and india shared 50 percent of the world's wealth.
china always had the monolopy on silk. we on spices. we have been the leading producer of pepper for a mere 4000 years now. dig?? read Pliny and Arrian (roman historians) and see how they blamed india for making rome hedonistic (we dupmed our surplus goods on rome, the way china dupms on usa today). or better yet read a bit of hisroty of economics and see which countries were traditionally rich and which werent.
and raj army didnt have many hindus till Veer Sarvarkar realised just what the british were doing (filling up the raj army with muslims) and recruited loads of hindus in the raj army.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
yeah dont know much about that
slightly off topic...i was watching a movie not long ago about the British Raj and how the sepoys rebelled against them....cant remember the name, but i suppose it wasnt a bad insight into what happened there
of course u fucking had a nice wealth base.....fucking the majority of the trade from east indies to europe went through india....nothing to do with the crumbling of the mughal empire though....it wasnt a lack of wealth that brought down the mughal empire it was too many differing attitudes towards your fucked up religions (muslim and hindu)
Tell that to the thousands of Aborigines in Australia today. I expect they'd have something to say about that comment.
yes and we dont differentiate between mughals and british. both were oppressors and both were invaders. one caused religion based carnage and another caused economic loot.
marathas (sachin tendulkar is a maratha) were amongst the only indians who had managed to weather the islamic onslaught and keep fighting the muslims till the last day and then fought the british too.
akbar never supported the hindu faith at all - he wanted to make islam more acceptable to hindus, by taking/inducting a piece or two from hinduism into his brand of islam, the way the missionaries do it all over the world (eg - in scandivavia the churches are built on/like viking temples. the festival of christmas likewise has nothign to do with Christ. it is an act of christianity inducting the pagan concept of celebrating the winter solstice, to make christianity more acceptable. btw, the date for christmas, was also chosen in similar ways - 25th december is when Mithras was supposedly born, and the cult of Mithras was very popular in rome).
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
The indian sub-continent had one of the wealthiest economies in the world before the British took control of it, and re-directed the wealth back to blighty. A bit like the way the U.S takes control of foreign economic wealth today and redirects it back into American business under the guise of the free market, and with the help of corrupt puppet regimes and officials, and the threat of military intervention - i.e, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq.
sure, i lok forward to it too - just as long as you do not come up with Asko Parpola's lunatic interpretations.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
by my reading akbar employed hindus under him and even married a hindu princess....yeah some say he did it so he could prosper a lot more, but most argue, and i also argue, that akbar wanted muslims and hindus to live in peace together
not only did it go through india - it CAME from india. all the raw materials. most of the rest came from china.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
i know that...im not argueing against that
read my posts
im argueing that the break up of the mughal empire made it easier for the british to colonise!
The break up wasnt caused by a lack of wealth beacues they were wealthy, it was caused by trouble amongst the peoples attitudes
so what??????
whats your point
I wasn't arguing with you. :eek:
P.S.
Ricky Ponting shits all over Sachin Tendulkar
Come talk to me when India win a World Cup
ha ha ha ha