Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nobaron

Junior Member
Registered Member
Abhimanyu said:
We do think religion divides us but many of Prophet Muhammad's progeny had sought refuge in India( Now Pakistan) under Raja Dahir specially the affafi clan from Mecca which later led to invasion of India by Umayyads. India in its prosperous times has given refuge to Jews, Iranians and many other people escaping war. There is hardly a village in India where you won't find a mosque. One of the contentions between India and China starting in 1959 was refuge given to Dalai Lama which made China suspect India and it still does which brings me to Indians and Chinese.
Click to expand...
BS & half.
Refugee flow has never been country specific. It has revolved around survival & livelihood. Refugees at that time could not sought "refuge" in India because there was no India. So called Indians you talk about have fought for their own kingdoms. They took refuge in specific part of subcontinent that later went to "modern India". I am born Buddhist , i know what those hindus have done.
As long as people does not recognize the simple fact that "india" was most prosperous when there was no india. North east, Sikkim is not india, it was simply thrown into mix, same thing with Kashmir.
This aint a religious forum, but following your logic, one of most sacred god in hinduism actually never been in "modern India".
Most of your history is correct, it is conclusion that went south.
You need to differentiate between India that was built by minorities who stood up for independence v/s hindustan/akhand bharatiya utopia of "let's not fight against britsey" hindus.
The so called "ancient India" reached it's top when it was ruled by Jains, Buddhist & Muslims. The only reason India still survives is because of a parsi name homi jahangir & muslim name abdul kalam.
Hindus & India never goes together. It either has to be india or it has to be Hindustan.
 
T

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nobaron said:
BS & half.
Refugee flow has never been country specific. It has revolved around survival & livelihood. Refugees at that time could not sought "refuge" in India because there was no India. So called Indians you talk about have fought for their own kingdoms. They took refuge in specific part of subcontinent that later went to "modern India". I am born Buddhist , i know what those hindus have done.
As long as people does not recognize the simple fact that "india" was most prosperous when there was no india. North east, Sikkim is not india, it was simply thrown into mix, same thing with Kashmir.
This aint a religious forum, but following your logic, one of most sacred god in hinduism actually never been in "modern India".
Most of your history is correct, it is conclusion that went south.
You need to differentiate between India that was built by minorities who stood up for independence v/s hindustan/akhand bharatiya utopia of "let's not fight against britsey" hindus.
The so called "ancient India" reached it's top when it was ruled by Jains, Buddhist & Muslims. The only reason India still survives is because of a parsi name homi jahangir & muslim name abdul kalam.
Hindus & India never goes together. It either has to be india or it has to be Hindustan.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you really need to learn more about South Asian history. Chandragupta Maurya, who ruled the largest empire in south Asian history, was a hindu who converted to Jainism after abdicating the throne. His grandson Ashoka converted to Buddhism to denounce and atone for the bloodshed of conquering Kaling. The Gupta dynasty that ruled most of Northern South Asia during what historians call "The Golden Age of South Asia" was also hindu. Even right before the British became a major power in South Asia, the majority of modern India was ruled by the Hindu Maratha confederacy.

But this discussion is way off topic.
 
N

Nobaron

Junior Member
Registered Member
twineedle said:
With all due respect, you really need to learn more about South Asian history. Chandragupta Maurya, who ruled the largest empire in south Asian history, was a hindu who converted to Jainism after abdicating the throne. His grandson Ashoka converted to Buddhism to denounce and atone for the bloodshed of conquering Kaling. The Gupta dynasty that ruled most of Northern South Asia during what historians call "The Golden Age of South Asia" was also hindu. Even right before the British became a major power in South Asia, the majority of modern India was ruled by the Hindu Maratha confederacy.
Click to expand...
With no due respect, it is you who need to learn about your ownself. According to hindus,hinduism is not a religion, but way of life. So Chandragupta couldn't have denounced Hinduism. So called modern hindusism has it's roots in arya society and it's founder who preached one supreme being theory, similar to Abrahamic religion. "Ancient" hindusim" is practically mishmash of jainism & other folk cultures.
Even by going your logic, Chandra gupta denounced his faith because the king of largest empire did not find it to be valid. We know about Ashoka. Two of most decorated king in south asian history.None of them found your way to be valid. How does that fit in "Hindustan" narrative?
Many kingdoms ruled Modern India, that includes Mughals & British empire before & after. Maratha genocide in Bengal is pretty well known. What's your point?
twineedle said:
But this discussion is way off topic.
Click to expand...
But you could not resist replying anyway :cool::cool:
 
T

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nobaron said:
With no due respect, it is you who need to learn about your ownself. According to hindus,hinduism is not a religion, but way of life. So Chandragupta couldn't have denounced Hinduism. So called modern hindusism has it's roots in arya society and it's founder who preached one supreme being theory, similar to Abrahamic religion. "Ancient" hindusim" is practically mishmash of jainism & other folk cultures.
Even by going your logic, Chandra gupta denounced his faith because the king of largest empire did not find it to be valid. We know about Ashoka. Two of most decorated king in south asian history.None if them found hinduism to be valid.
Many kingdoms ruled Modern India, that includes Mughals & British empire before & after. Maratha genocide in Bengal is pretty well known. What's your point?

But you could not resist replying anyway :cool::cool:
Click to expand...
You asserted that ancient and medieval India was not successful when ruled by Hindus. I simply provided examples countering that. And since you brought up religion, you should know that Hinduism was always henothistic, not monotheistic; specifically one all-pervasive God represented in many forms. The big difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that Buddhists historically did not believe in any specific God.
 
N

Nobaron

Junior Member
Registered Member
twineedle said:
You asserted that ancient and medieval India was not successful when ruled by Hindus.
Click to expand...
There was no such thing as ancient India. It was ancient sub continent.
And no it was never successful when it was ruled by hindus. In fact last of it was pretty much got it's azz whopped by Britseys, or should i say Her majesty's forces?
twineedle said:
I simply provided examples countering that.
Click to expand...
You simply provided examples countering my facts that actually supports my facts? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
twineedle said:
And since you brought up religion,
Click to expand...
I did not, your fellow indians did it.
twineedle said:
you should know that Hinduism was always henothistic, not monotheistic; specifically one all-pervasive God represented in many forms. The big difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that Buddhists historically did not believe in any specific God.
Click to expand...
According to you? How many of your fellow hindus will agree to that? Which one is that all in one god?
Furthermore, any concept of supreme being does run counter to narrative of universal way of life.
In hinduism there was never one god, it was preached later by arya society. Many form of one god is monotheistic, since it is one god theory. Yea, you are correct about Buddhism, but it really doesn't matter to me because i don't follow any religion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top