1971 genocide was of bengalis not like hindu or muslim coz for west pakistanis all were same as bengalis be it hindu or muslim....
Demystification of the Islamic Rule in India
- Thread starter AJSINGH
- Start date
- Status
i have an entire thread on the genocide of bangladesh , 80% victicms were hindus
And who were the supporting forces behind these rulers????ofcourse they were hindus and ofcourse in major battles it were the hindu commanders who commanded the forces.....
once again , we are just too many ...do you get it ..just too many , even now there are over 1 crore temples in india , if you destory 1 temple a day , it will take you 1 crore years to destory each and every one of them
and it is just not gold ,i have a feeling that you have not read the entire article
and where did these commanders get their order , let me get this right , during the jalliwalla bagh killings , you do not blame the indian soilders for firing at the people , the blame goes to the commander ( general dyre in this case )
i am 18 and i am in NDA ( so yeh i am not crazy )
Oracle
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,120
- Likes
- 1,566
Are you sure?
How do you know that?
Were you analysed by a certified professional?
Relax Kid. Chill out!!!
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
11 pages into the thread and we are still discussing if we should have this thread. Nothing useful or academic is yet to come out. If at all one of the debater from either side of the spectrum had moved on from tit for tat replies adding no value to the discussion and gone on to post more on their respective thinking. Apart from the first post which started this discussion, we are yet to see anything worthwhile. Which makes me wonder what was the reason behind starting this thread in the first place, exactly what has followed or the academics which we are yet to see??
my intention was to let people know about the other side of muslim rule in india , as simple as that
Sure we blame indian soldiers and we sure do condemn jaichands and mir jaffers(our books r full of such blames and condemnation).....And indian coliders are equally culpable of crime as general Dyre is in case of Jalianwala bagh massacre.
i did post the link to original arab version of history of india translated by the H.M elliot..these were the original account of the people who traveled to india with invading forces.But just got lost in discussion.
really i do not see any such comments from any historian , why did not then Udham singh ( who killed General Dyre kill every soilder also ?)
in army there is always chain of command , you just execute the order and not think why the order is given in first place
my source is also authentic
Which dyre udham singh killed????
Kid you have to brush up your history knowledge urgently....It was Sir Michael O'Dwyer, who was The Governor of the Punjab region whom Udham singh had killed not the Brigadier-General Reginald E. H. Dyer who ordered the jallianwala bagh massacre....
Introduction
Udham Singh (also known as Mohammed Singh Azad) was 37 years old and lived in lodgings located in Mornington Cresent. His Brother was one of those killed during the British suppression of the Amritsar Riots in 1919.
The Amritsar Massacre, is the name given to the massacre of demonstrators supporting Indian independence by soldiers of the British Empire on 13 April 1919, in the northern Indian city of Amritsar.
The event was precipitated by the extension of emergency powers assumed by the government of British India during World War I to combat subversion; Mohandas Gandhi called on all India to oppose this action. When local leaders allied to the Indian National Congress were arrested on April 10, supporters gathered to protest were fired on by British troops, causing a riot during which British banks were burned, four Europeans killed, and two British women attacked.
Troops commanded by Brigadier-General Reginald E. H. Dyer were dispatched from Jullundur to restore order. Dyer's forces confronted some 20,000 unarmed protesters, gathered in an enclosed public square called the Jallianwalla Bagh.
Assembling 50 soldiers at the square's sole exit, Dyer ordered his force to fire without warning on the crowd, which included many women and children. Some 1,650 rounds were fired over 10-15 minutes: an estimated 379 protesters were killed and over 1,200 wounded.
Sir Michael O'Dwyer, who was The Governor of the Punjab region, supported the massacre but it was condemned at an official inquiry in 1920. Dyer was forced to retire to Britain, but received praise from the House of Lords and a jewelled sword purchased by public subscription.
The Case Details
On 13 March 1940, Sir Michael was one of a distinguished company at a joint meeting in the Tudor Hall, Caxton Hall, Westminster, of the East India Association and the Royal Central Asiatic Society.
Extract from Udham Singh's Diary including the date of O'Dwyer's murder
As the meeting was breaking up Udham Singh fired all 6 rounds of a .45 Smith & Wesson revolver into a group of people on the platform of whom O'Dwyer was a part. O'Dwyer was was hit twice in the back, and killed instantly. One bullet passing through his heart and right lung. Another bullet passed through both kidneys.
Lord Zetland, Secretary of State for India, was hit twice although he was only slightly injured, as were Lord Lamington and Sir Louis Dane. The numbers of people killed were not as large as could have been expected, as Udham Singh used 30 year old, poor fitting .44 bullets.
Udham Singh was overpowered before he left the room. His hatred had not been diminished by killing O'Dwyer:
"I did it because I had a grudge against him, he deserved it. I don't belong to any society or anything else. I don't care, I don't mind dying. What is the use of waiting until you get old? That is no good ... Is Zetland dead? He ought to be, I put two in him. I bought the revolver from a soldier in a public house. My parents died when I was 3 or 4 ... Only the one dead, eh? I thought I could get more."
Udham Singh was tried for the murder of Sir Michael O'Dwyer at London's Central Criminal Court during June 1940. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.
On 31 July 1940, Udham Singh was hanged at Pentonville Prison. As with other executed prisoners, he was buried later that afternoon within the prison grounds.
During the trial, Udham Singh had made a request that his remains be sent back to India, but this was not allowed. In 1975, however, the Government of India, at the instance of the Punjab Government, asked for the return of Udham Singh's remains. Their request was allowed by the UK Government, and his exhumed remains were handed over to representatives of the Indian Government
British Military & Criminal History in the period 1900 to 1999.
Introduction
Udham Singh (also known as Mohammed Singh Azad) was 37 years old and lived in lodgings located in Mornington Cresent. His Brother was one of those killed during the British suppression of the Amritsar Riots in 1919.
The Amritsar Massacre, is the name given to the massacre of demonstrators supporting Indian independence by soldiers of the British Empire on 13 April 1919, in the northern Indian city of Amritsar.
The event was precipitated by the extension of emergency powers assumed by the government of British India during World War I to combat subversion; Mohandas Gandhi called on all India to oppose this action. When local leaders allied to the Indian National Congress were arrested on April 10, supporters gathered to protest were fired on by British troops, causing a riot during which British banks were burned, four Europeans killed, and two British women attacked.
Troops commanded by Brigadier-General Reginald E. H. Dyer were dispatched from Jullundur to restore order. Dyer's forces confronted some 20,000 unarmed protesters, gathered in an enclosed public square called the Jallianwalla Bagh.
Assembling 50 soldiers at the square's sole exit, Dyer ordered his force to fire without warning on the crowd, which included many women and children. Some 1,650 rounds were fired over 10-15 minutes: an estimated 379 protesters were killed and over 1,200 wounded.
Sir Michael O'Dwyer, who was The Governor of the Punjab region, supported the massacre but it was condemned at an official inquiry in 1920. Dyer was forced to retire to Britain, but received praise from the House of Lords and a jewelled sword purchased by public subscription.
The Case Details
On 13 March 1940, Sir Michael was one of a distinguished company at a joint meeting in the Tudor Hall, Caxton Hall, Westminster, of the East India Association and the Royal Central Asiatic Society.
Extract from Udham Singh's Diary including the date of O'Dwyer's murder
As the meeting was breaking up Udham Singh fired all 6 rounds of a .45 Smith & Wesson revolver into a group of people on the platform of whom O'Dwyer was a part. O'Dwyer was was hit twice in the back, and killed instantly. One bullet passing through his heart and right lung. Another bullet passed through both kidneys.
Lord Zetland, Secretary of State for India, was hit twice although he was only slightly injured, as were Lord Lamington and Sir Louis Dane. The numbers of people killed were not as large as could have been expected, as Udham Singh used 30 year old, poor fitting .44 bullets.
Udham Singh was overpowered before he left the room. His hatred had not been diminished by killing O'Dwyer:
"I did it because I had a grudge against him, he deserved it. I don't belong to any society or anything else. I don't care, I don't mind dying. What is the use of waiting until you get old? That is no good ... Is Zetland dead? He ought to be, I put two in him. I bought the revolver from a soldier in a public house. My parents died when I was 3 or 4 ... Only the one dead, eh? I thought I could get more."
Udham Singh was tried for the murder of Sir Michael O'Dwyer at London's Central Criminal Court during June 1940. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.
On 31 July 1940, Udham Singh was hanged at Pentonville Prison. As with other executed prisoners, he was buried later that afternoon within the prison grounds.
During the trial, Udham Singh had made a request that his remains be sent back to India, but this was not allowed. In 1975, however, the Government of India, at the instance of the Punjab Government, asked for the return of Udham Singh's remains. Their request was allowed by the UK Government, and his exhumed remains were handed over to representatives of the Indian Government
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 14,104
- Likes
- 63,370
Debating flaws of Muslim rule in India is like condemning human evolution. We have lost our many connection or simply we do not want to discuss when Muslims were already living in southern India way before any invader from hindkush entranced. Also we are functionally unaware of how India was gaining prosperity via trade way before birth of Lord Buddha in red sea.
Evils of Muslim rulers were not something inherited from aliens or something specially different from their Indian counterparts but were the by products of politico/social conditions of that age. Why we forgot it was coward Ambi a Hindu king who opened the gates of India for Alexander to massacre Indians in countless numbers. Why we are reluctant to debate and totally mute today to criticize inhuman British rule.
I mean i could have became more sympathetic to my native Indian ancestors (Hindus) of pre Islamic era but they were always divided, slaves of kings and very attractive for invaders to invade.
What Muslim rulers did in India was nothing atypical about their rule in Europe, middle east, Siberia, to the walls of china and far east.
If Hindus never liked expedition then same shouldn't be expected from other civilizations. Every single war fought on the face of earth was more political and less religious, no single religion has exception about this. Where ever Muslims did military expedition following a very long, laborious and random migration to different regions of Asia from middle east; the destruction was caused followed by introduction of Islam to govern that particular territory. There was no other option for them but to rule the land for socio/political reason under the tone of deafening Islamic slogans. Why Islam was uprooted from Spain and not from India if is our complaint today then the same is the testimony to the fact that we were more accepting to Islam due to our religious tolerance and a state of backwardness to live either in coexistence or animosity at the same time.
Whatever happened in past was more spontaneous, natural and difficult to control for both Hindus and Muslims per their perception about survival, however what we can achieve today as a nation of proud Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs et al. is more important and within our capacity to shape for better survival in coexistence.
Evils of Muslim rulers were not something inherited from aliens or something specially different from their Indian counterparts but were the by products of politico/social conditions of that age. Why we forgot it was coward Ambi a Hindu king who opened the gates of India for Alexander to massacre Indians in countless numbers. Why we are reluctant to debate and totally mute today to criticize inhuman British rule.
I mean i could have became more sympathetic to my native Indian ancestors (Hindus) of pre Islamic era but they were always divided, slaves of kings and very attractive for invaders to invade.
What Muslim rulers did in India was nothing atypical about their rule in Europe, middle east, Siberia, to the walls of china and far east.
If Hindus never liked expedition then same shouldn't be expected from other civilizations. Every single war fought on the face of earth was more political and less religious, no single religion has exception about this. Where ever Muslims did military expedition following a very long, laborious and random migration to different regions of Asia from middle east; the destruction was caused followed by introduction of Islam to govern that particular territory. There was no other option for them but to rule the land for socio/political reason under the tone of deafening Islamic slogans. Why Islam was uprooted from Spain and not from India if is our complaint today then the same is the testimony to the fact that we were more accepting to Islam due to our religious tolerance and a state of backwardness to live either in coexistence or animosity at the same time.
Whatever happened in past was more spontaneous, natural and difficult to control for both Hindus and Muslims per their perception about survival, however what we can achieve today as a nation of proud Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs et al. is more important and within our capacity to shape for better survival in coexistence.
Last edited:
now thats what i called is an apt intellectual analysis of the history rather than one based on the passions propagated from page 1
one sided passion ..that is all truth my friend , weather you like it or not
nrj
Ambassador
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,658
- Likes
- 3,911
Rulers are not sole ambassadors of any religion.
Talking about deed of rulers in the past,
Biased & wrong view: Ruler of Religion-A killed Non-A religion people. Non-A religion is better than Religion-A.
Correct view: Ruler named Mr.ABC killed people. Mr.ABC was bad.
- Status
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Radical Islamic country Maldives insulted Indians and Prime Minister Modi. Indians show Maldives its place | Subcontinent & Central Asia | 2 | |
|
Oil, Political Islam and it's future. | West Asia & Africa | 9 | |
|
Islam in China | China | 0 | |
| W | Islamic Conquest of India | History & Culture | 0 |
