Islamic Invasions ! Hindus Persecutions !

[srivatsan]

Who called the land mass as Bharatham, some piece of litreature thats it. I do not think that term Bharatham was ever used in that sense by the kings or the common man. Tamil litreature does not include that term and neither the rock edicts of ashoka or other kings uses that term. Just because some author proposed that term in his story does not mean it was really used in that sense.

Becuz, even Ashoka was not able to bring the entire Bharathavasha under one kingdom.....It is Rajendra Chozha, was able to do that....but he didn't do any Rajasooya yagam or someting to proclaim himself as a "Chakravarthi"...

Well...as far as Bharatham is concerened, the entire land mass between the east and west ocean and from Himalayam to Kanya kumari....it was called Bhartha Varsham....if you want to call it by some thamizh name, I dont mind....as the culture remained the same....

[Surya]

I'm quite Pleasantly Surpriced that this thread has been started and has sucessfully moved on to it's 2nd page!

Thanks to Shivaji southern india was left untouched.

Actually, When speaking about Hindu Genocide, it is impossible to not mention Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj, and when Speaking about the Chatrapathi, it is impossible to not mention the Hindu Genocide that has taken place in India starting with Muhamad of Ghazni.

I started a thread on Sivaji a while back, but haven't had the time to continue. Hopefully after I get through my Finals in May, I'll be back to that thread.

So far I had written about the Massacre @ Somnath Temple by Gazini and his forces.

(The Legacy Of Chatrapathy Sivaji Maharaj)

http://www.forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/v...t=4893&start=0

[Surya]

"Hindu Kush Montain" how many of us knows that the meaning of this is "Blood of Hindu". That mountain, which is today in afganisthan was washed with the bloods of Hindu that it has been names as Hindu Khush (khush mean blood in turkish and an accnet of Farsi)and this has been purposfully, delebarately shadowed in the name of secualrism

Strange thing, I was just reading about this yesterday.

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_histor...indu_kush.html

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0401/64.html

[rocketboy]

Thanks to Shivaji southern india was left untouched........

That is not true, not to denigrade The great Maratha leader, he was instrumental in preventing one form of chuvanism in what we call as Maharastra now. The imapct of islam is pretty minimal in south basically because of the very strong cultural identity in the south, be it the Tamil/telugu/kannada/malayalam land. Also thanks to many reasons like, relatively stable kingdoms in the south, the language disconnect between the north and south, vindhyas terrain, tiredness of the invaders etc.

Since we are talking of the invaders and the genocide in India, I am surprised by the non inclusion of the references about the genocide in Rig veda that were commited on the Indians by the invading vedics.

I am not going to refute your claims. shivaji's reign coincided with that of aurangazeb. and its well known fact aurangazeb was the most orthodox , intolerant ruler in the mughal dynasty.(He jailed his father and killed one of his brothers to ascend the throne) shivaji thwarted every attempt made by aurangazeb to conquer southern India. aurangazeb followed the policy of forced conversion and torture with more rigour than any of his predecessors. The martyrdom of guru Tegh bahadur singh is also attributed to him.I don't agree with you that the Vindhyas are more formidable than the giant himalayas. None of the muslim rulers were virtuous. Be it ghori or ghazni or tughlaq or mughals. They were hell bent on propagating their own religion. Thats why we south indians owe a lot to shivaji.

[bis_mala]

Looks like the Hindus of the North were not at all good soldiers. Everytime an invading force came, they fell!! We are not talking of individual bravery like of that Shivaji but of the armies.

There was some inherent weakness in them. Can any one of our brothers here idenify the weakness?

It seems Alexander the Great also knew of this weakness of the North Indians!!

[srivatsan]

Looks like the Hindus of the North were not at all good soldiers. Everytime an invading force came, they fell!! We are not talking of individual bravery like of that Shivaji but of the armies.

There was some inherent weakness in them. Can any one of our brothers here idenify the weakness?

It seems Alexander the Great also knew of this weakness of the North Indians!!

Correctly said bismala....it was not only in the north, it was all over the Bharatham, that weakness existed...the weakness is jealousy and enmity and that weakness continues to exist even now....

[Lambretta]

Correctly said bismala....it was not only in the north, it was all over the Bharatham, that weakness existed...the weakness is jealousy and enmity and that weakness continues to exist even now....

Also, might I add, complacency/over-confidence?

[rajraj]

There was some inherent weakness in them. Can any one of our brothers here idenify the weakness?

mala: First, you have to understand that there was no India as we know it today before independence. Even when the British ruled there were princely states that had their own laws except for paying taxes to the British. That was also true when the moguls ruled. The Moguls and the British were good at playing one princely state against the other in exchange for 'protection' and expansion of a favored princely state. When India became independent most of the princely states acceded to the union. Maharaja of Kashmir was wavering which lead to ' Kashmir problem'. Travancore Maharaja was said to have considered declaring independence. Nizam of Hyderabad flatly refused and took his case to UN security council. India had to march its army into the state of Hyderabad to defeat Nizam's army. It was under force the Nizam acceded. Now, you know the weakness. Simply put, there was no unity in diversity. In other words, Indian princes (maharajas,rajas and other feudal lords) did not learn from Mogul experience. For them 'enemy's enemy was a friend'.

That also means genocide was not by moguls alone. One Hindu princely state was killing citizens of another princely state with the support of moguls !

[srivatsan]

That also means genocide was not by moguls alone. One Hindu princely state was killing citizens of another princely state with the support of moguls !

I think I differ only in this stmt rajaraj. I accept to the rest....Though the king od one princely state is enemy of the other, the citizens were allowed to pass freely....The RajaDharma at that time was, whatever may be the Princely State, that if there is a war, it is between the kings and NOT with the citizens.....I think, every state adhered to this principle....It was only Mughals and Turkish, who started attacking poor citizens......

Finally, India was not one country in the recent past, but was culturally one.....Infact, our motto was not "Unity in Diversity, It was Diversity inpite of Unity".

[srivatsan]

Correctly said bismala....it was not only in the north, it was all over the Bharatham, that weakness existed...the weakness is jealousy and enmity and that weakness continues to exist even now....

Also, might I add, complacency/over-confidence?

ummmmmm.....but complacency or over confidence didn't find much place in our history. May be it is culture or Dharma which was our weakness. For example, if PrithiviRaj had Finished Ghori when he was defeated by Rajput Army and was left a prisoner, the history would have been very differernt. There Prithivi's Yuddha Dharma, was his weakness....

But, above all, jealosy and greediness was the main weakness....