:roll: :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
Printable View
:roll: :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzalot
Not forcebily !Quote:
That Genocide refers to the destruction of the minority by the majority.
Indians in America were largely the MAJORITY !!
Like Hindus were the majority when Muslims invaded without pause and stop India.
Genocide comes from the word Genos (which means family,tribe or race) + Cide (which is termination or killing). So you must be able to clearly define who the affected party is if you want us to proceed further. "Geno" has an element of genetics and bilogical origin to it. What it does not have is "religion", "belief", "culture","goodness" etc which the beginning of this thread was all about. You can call the killing based on religion with any other word, but not Genocide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eelavar
And if the genocide was against a particular religion followers ?Quote:
You can call the killing based on religion with any other word, but not Genocide.
:roll: :roll:
:?: :?:
Religous persecution ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Eelavar
pizzalt: i asked one question, it was why and what u was trying to tell us with ur shocking posts some pages before..........calling hindusim the most intolerent religion.................i didnt mean about the genocide or sth!
Hinduism is soft and passionate as well as intolerant and arrogant depending on the place you see it. Modern Hinduism practiced at home by loose educated individuals is very flexible and tolerant largely because of the progressive and rational nature of the individuals who practice it and not the Hinduism itslef. Read the punishments described in the scriptures for even petty offences and you will know.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy
The same Hinduism is rigid and intolerant in many parts of India and practiced word by word. It interferes into the rights of every individual. And if someone violates, they and they are punished the way Manu dictates. A widow is cursed and secluded or sometimes killed. A teenage boy or girl will be given nice lessons if they cross the boundaries of Manu's castelines and normally ex-communicated.
Lives of non-hindus in villages is largely ex-communicated lives.
The British gave their military or police vehicle drivers as follows: "If you have no other choice but to choose between running over 100 people and a cow, choose the former". You will never see the intolerance of Hinduism in Bangalore or Delhi or any city. Go to the villages and you will see the reality.
You tell me where and how you find it tolerant. It will be you who will shock me if you are saying Hinduism is the most tolerant religion.
Hindus are docile and soft only when they are not given power. When they are given power they are mostly intolerant.
Are you asking me what was the need to post all that stuff ?
Read the posts from the beginning. Eelavar starts the thread, praises Hinduism and others praise the greatness of Shivaji, condemns Aurangazeb, started to portrait Ghori and the british as the only villains who killed if all the others as innocent babies. One of them say Gori defeats Prithvi in adharma way (100 ways to explain a defeat ) and this innocent Prithvi and other Indian rulers always faught the dharma way.
I interfered and said it is all BS, they were not innocent babies, all were cunning and nasty oldies, they killed everyone, they plundered and robbed the innocent, destroyed civilizations and related to Gori by blood and thought, only difference is Gori read Qoran and these quys read some Vedas or Thiru Kural and in terms of numbers these guys killed more people than Gori or other invaders. Pulukesin destroyed Pallava dynasty and killed millions of innocent people. Narisimha Pallava killed Pulukesin and his people, plundered the city of Vanchi and to this day every Kannadiga, while killing a Tamil tells this story to the Tamil before he dies.
Please note I do not say "foreign invader" here. Everyone was "foreign" in Indian history. A Pandya King would have been much more foreign than Gori for Prithivi.
Got it ?
Have I made my points clear ? Or you want me to be more graphic ?
Why foreign ? Invaders are foreigners by nature ...! :roll: Invaders are those who make an 'invasion' (from the exterior). :roll:Quote:
Please note I do not say "foreign invader" here.
pizzalot what some warriors did to fight these invaders was not bad. In fact i ADMIRE THEM, I THANK THEM A LOT.
More than 1000 detroyed and robbed temples, more than 80 mios souls killed for their tolerance, resumely more destructions than good creations, it is why i thank those fighters who took arms and stopped this bloody invasion.
And unfortunately the most affected region is still North India... There is no secret about the religious tolerance there..There is a cause for the extermism , it cannot fall from the sky. To each cause an effect. (I don't say that it is good but i just talk about the reality there) :roll:
Pizzalot there is a huge difference between the war delivered among Indian princes in anciant time and the wars of the Islamic invasion. :roll:
In Indian wars of power only the caste of fighters was touched. The innocants were rarely affected.
In the 'holy' war against the Idols , children, women, priests, and other unarmed were slaughtered without pity.. :roll:
There is a hughe difference.
I agree war is war but there is hard or soft wars....
Eelavar, you are trying to understand India from what you see today with all the borders drawn intact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eelavar
Just imagine there were no recognized International borders. If you keep travelling from East (Assam) to West (Persia) do you think you would have seen people's faces changing suddenly from Mongoloid to Indo Eurapean ? The change will be gradual and smooth. Between the ancient Iran and ancient North Wset India there were no major differences including weather, food and religion. As I mentioned earlier they were culturally very similar. They are basically from the same lot. Hard and ruthless people. That is the reason why the war was very bloody.
After anywar there were innocent, women and children killed, raped or affected. Simply it is the bane of battles. The History is usually written by the winners and so you do not read anything about it.
With respect to communalism in North India, it was not the Muslim invasion per se that was responsible for it. Hindus and Muslims lived very happily for 600 years. Who captured Shivaji for Aurangazeb ? The great Rajput general Jaipal Singh, who was a descendant of Prithivi. For the Rajputs the Marathi culture was more alien than the Moghuls'. That is true even today.
There was a general agreement of power between the Muslims and the west indian Hindus until 1947. It was the partition of India and the subsequent displacement of people on the either side made them immortal enemies. Those that arrived from there wanted to displace the muslims who opted to stay here which is very natural. Several of them occupy high positions in the right wing party. With the death of that generation of people, this hatred will subside though the safron parties may not like that to happen.
Pakistan is about the size of one state in India, UP. Indian Army is a giant and can take Kabul or Karachi any minute they wish.
As for Iran, Iran is a friend and ally of ours. Iran, on any day will favor India over Pakistan. So does the Arab world. So what do we gain by raking-up 1000 year old stories is what I fail to understand.
Even if all that we seek is an apology or condemnation from the Islamic world, how can we put out our case after being freinds with the invaders for 700 years ?
In many posts you say the hindu genocide is still continuing. Who do you refer to ? Is it Sri Lanka ? If that is the case I am 100% percent with you. Not because they are Hindus. As even just humans they have every right to live in Sri Lanka as much as Sinhalese do. Also they are minorities.
I would like India to march into Colombo and this time instead of back stabbing the Tamils, or having a selfish agenda promoting itsown betterment, I would want India to honestly help the Tamil's cause, even if it meant divsion of that Nation. Disarming the Tamils and handing them to the brutal Sri Lankans will be as bad as killing all the tamils. Simply Sri Lankans have demonstrated highest-level of intolerance even though they are Buddhists.
And I want Indians never to become like Sri Lankans.