Was there local support for invaders?

[India22]

@pmaitra my argument does stand. See tribal and Pagan Europe being egalitarian converted. Buddhist Central Asia and Christian, Jewish and Pagan West Asia submitted.

Now Buddhism lacks the defensive power. Hinduism although not aggressive does have a concept of war. Buddhism does not have. Further animist areas are more susceptible to conversion. Animist Visayas of Philippines converted earlier than Islamic Moors. That's why you will find anywhere where Buddhism was prevalent there Buddhism vanished.

In Africa when Europeans came then animist Africans converted easily but Muslim Africans did not. Hope this helps. In those days to prevent conversion one needed to have a rigid society if the religion is defensive like Hinduism. But if the society was egalitarian than an aggressive religious ideology was needed. Even among Mongols who worshiped their original religion converted to Islam but Buddhist Mongols did not.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra my argument does stand. See tribal and Pagan Europe being egalitarian converted. Buddhist Central Asia and Christian, Jewish and Pagan West Asia submitted.

Now Buddhism lacks the defensive power. Hinduism although not aggressive does have a concept of war. Buddhism does not have. Further animist areas are more susceptible to conversion. Animist Visayas of Philippines converted earlier than Islamic Moors. That's why you will find anywhere where Buddhism was prevalent there Buddhism vanished.

In Africa when Europeans came then animist Africans converted easily but Muslim Africans did not. Hope this helps. In those days to prevent conversion one needed to have a rigid society if the religion is defensive like Hinduism. But if the society was egalitarian than an aggressive religious ideology was needed. Even among Mongols who worshiped their original religion converted to Islam but Buddhist Mongols did not.

Your argument stands only when you cherry pick those examples that support your hypothesis. It is called confirmation bias.

Here, quoting myself:

There are examples that support your hypothesis and there are examples that oppose your hypothesis.

 

[Peter]

Coming to the main topic of this thread, I do not think there was local support for invaders whether Muslim or British. Everyone including the tribals opposed the invaders of India. Please read about Sidhu Kanu and Birsa Munda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidhu_Kanhu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birsa_Munda

Even Sanyasis and Fakirs of Bengal fought the invaders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sannyasi_rebellion

One should read Anandamath by our esteemed Bengali writer Bankimchandra Chatterjee.


While our warriors were brave we lacked in innovation and modern army tactics. From Babur to the British, we were defeated simply by the enemy possessing better weapons and having superior military tactics compared to us.

The Battle of Khanwa demonstrated that Rajput bravery was not enough to counter Babur's superior generalship and organizational skills. Babur himself commented:

Swordsmen though some Hindustanis may be, most of them are ignorant and unskilled in military move and stand, in soldierly counsel and procedure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khanwa

In the Battle of Khanwa even a few Muslims fought alongside the Rajputs.

 

[Project Dharma]

Coming to the main topic of this thread, I do not think there was local support for invaders whether Muslim or British. Everyone including the tribals opposed the invaders of India. Please read about Sidhu Kanu and Birsa Munda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidhu_Kanhu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birsa_Munda

Even Sanyasis and Fakirs of Bengal fought the invaders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sannyasi_rebellion

One should read Anandamath by our esteemed Bengali writer Bankimchandra Chatterjee.


While our warriors were brave we lacked in innovation and modern army tactics. From Babur to the British, we were defeated simply by the enemy possessing better weapons and having superior military tactics compared to us.

The Battle of Khanwa demonstrated that Rajput bravery was not enough to counter Babur's superior generalship and organizational skills. Babur himself commented:

Swordsmen though some Hindustanis may be, most of them are ignorant and unskilled in military move and stand, in soldierly counsel and procedure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khanwa

In the Battle of Khanwa even a few Muslims fought alongside the Rajputs.

In the Punjab, Baba Ala Singh, ancestor of Captain Amarinder Singh (Maharaja Patiala) sided with Afghans against Sikhs during the Great Massacre and was declared out of the panth. During the Anglo-Sikh wars, Ranjit Singh's generals betrayed his army against the British. You liked @pmaitra's post above about confirmation bias, it applies to you equally as well.

 

[pmaitra]

British and many colonial powers looted,exploited colonies for their financial gains but they never killed by shouting 'Jesus is great'.

King Richard the Lionheart was British, and yes, he did did fight for Christianity.

I could probably find more examples if I searched.

Read the Parallel Lives by Plutarch.

 

[pmaitra]

In the Punjab, Baba Ala Singh, ancestor of Captain Amarinder Singh (Maharaja Patiala) sided with Afghans against Sikhs during the Great Massacre and was declared out of the panth. During the Anglo-Sikh wars, Ranjit Singh's generals betrayed his army against the British. You liked @pmaitra's post above about confirmation bias, it applies to you equally as well.

You are correct. There has been so many examples of local support for invaders.

Like @Peter mentioned the Santhal Rebellion, the British received help from the Nawab of Bengal to crush the Santhal Rebellion.

I could not find anything about the "Great Massacre." Can you please share a link?

 

[Project Dharma]

I could not find anything about the "Great Massacre." Can you please share a link?

I've never been able to find a good English source but the library in my city has a good Punjabi book on the subject.

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/events/holocaust.html

Ala Singh, the Maharaja of Patiala remained neutral in the events and submitted to Abdali who asked him to shave his beard and head. Ala refused and paid him five lakh rupees in exchange for his freedom and his honor and became a vassal of Abdali.

 

[pmaitra]

100% terrorists are not Muslims only 99% ,1% is exception and 99% is 'normal'.

Sickulars/idiots uses this 1% to prove all religions are same', 'all kings are looters and barbarians' etc

What is the source of your percentages?

 

[pmaitra]

Well, good discussion today, and a lot of new information.

Will resume later when I find time.

@Google, thanks. It is about 97%.

 

[India22]

Your argument stands only when you cherry pick those examples that support your hypothesis. It is called confirmation bias.

Here, quoting myself:

Fine why dont you give me then some counter examples?

 

[Peter]

In the Punjab, Baba Ala Singh, ancestor of Captain Amarinder Singh (Maharaja Patiala) sided with Afghans against Sikhs during the Great Massacre and was declared out of the panth. During the Anglo-Sikh wars, Ranjit Singh's generals betrayed his army against the British. You liked @pmaitra's post above about confirmation bias, it applies to you equally as well.

The point I am trying to make is that local support for invaders was minimal, if not completely non existent. In every nation there are traitors and snitches but in India the locals generally tried to avoid collusion with the enemy. Also the loss of local rulers in the battlefield was more due to technical inferiority than betrayal.

People often bring up Battle of Plassey and claim that we lost due to the treachery of Mir Jafar. However if one studies the history of the battle or go to the Victoria Memorial in Kolkata they will find that Mir Jafar only had half of the 32000 strong army under his command. There were 12000 odd loyal soldiers of the Nawab, in addition to a small French brigade, who failed to defeat the English Army of 3000 men. The defeat was possible due to our antiquated battle techniques and lack of organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

Mir Madan and Mohan Lal both died valiantly in the Battle of Plassey.
Now Siraj ul Daula was himself a womanizer and a crooked soul who used to abduct Hindu women when they were bathing in the river banks. This was another reason for his downfall. However I would talk about that in a separate thread maybe.

 

[India22]

Well I found some new things on Sikhism

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=1163&L=16&Lang=1&I=8299

https://searchgurbani.com/bhai_gurdas_vaaran/vaar/31/pauri/18

"The Gurmukh understands the Simritees, the Shaastras and the Vedas."

PAGE 942

"reading the Vedas, sinful intellect is destroyed."

Page 791.

My purpose was to show that even though Sikhs left Hinduism, they continued to revere Hindu traditions, so Sikhs converting from Hinduism should not really count as a decline of Hinduism. In post No. 97.

@Project Dharma I some where read that after battle of Nowshera Sikhs forcefully fed pork Pashtuns, Pashtun woman was sold for 2 Dinars, can you verify it?

 

[Project Dharma]

My purpose was to show that even though Sikhs left Hinduism, they continued to revere Hindu traditions, so Sikhs converting from Hinduism should not really count as a decline of Hinduism. In post No. 97.

I'd agree with you, there are plenty of verses in the Sikh scriptures that mention Hindu deities, my purpose was to show that Sikh scriptures respect Hinduism but advocate a form of monoism that is not practiced by most (but not all) Hindus.

"I do not seek the blessings of Ganesh,
I do not worship Krishna or Vishnu.
I do not recognise them.
I am engrossed in the loving devotion of my Lord alone.
The Lord of Death, Akal, is my refuge and He saves me is all tribulations."

 

[Project Dharma]

@Project Dharma I some where read that after battle of Nowshera Sikhs forcefully fed pork Pashtuns, Pashtun woman was sold for 2 Dinars, can you verify it?

I couldn't find a source corroborating it and I'm inclined to not believe it because of the comment about Pashtun women. Sikhs could be very brutal against Pashtuns but as per all recorded sources of history, women were treated honorably.

A good source about the conduct of Sikhs in those days is the jungnama written by the Qazi of Abdali:

http://www.info-sikh.com/JJPage1.html

O valiant fighter, do justice to their (act of ) war. One of their armies invaded Multan and put the city to plunder and devastation and killed many of its inhabitants and carried away an immense booty. I am not sufficiently strong in mind to express what the dogs did there. But as God willed it, each of us has to submit to His Will."

Besides their fighting, listen to one more thing in which they excell all other warriors. They never kill a coward who is running away from the battlefield. They do not rob a woman of her wealth or ornaments whether she is rich or a servant ("Kaneez"). There is no adultry among these dogs, nor are they mischieveous people. A woman, whether young or old, they call a "Burhi". The word Burhi, means in Indian language, an old lady. There is no thief amongst these dogs, nor is there amongst them any mean people. They do not keep company with adulters and house thiefs though all their acts may not be commendable."

 

[Ancient Indian]

Satavahan empire chaluky empire peshwa empire khemer empire brahmin shahis sindh dahir and sunga empire are just few examples.

All are nothing but just few paragraphs in history text books.

King is lion. Not some chanting priest. I rest my case here.

P.S. - Sathavahana is not Brahmin Empire. Brahmins hate Buddism. We can still find the traces of this hatred in our old books. I might be wrong.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Satavahan empire chaluky empire peshwa empire khemer empire brahmin shahis sindh dahir and sunga empire are just few examples.

The Satavahana and Chalukya Dynasties were not Brahmin and the origin of the Shahis is still a mystery.
Only the Sungas were probably Brahmins

 

[Dreamhunter]

Proof ? .

The language of the Brahmins was Sanskrit but the Satavahana and Chalukya Dynasties patronised Dravidian languages and Prakrit. And the court poets of the Chalukya Dynasty even called the Chalukya rulers as Kannadas

 

[Project Dharma]

you see. i am not a nationalist. i am a historian and an anthropologist. i know what i am taking about. so piss off

Prove your claims with links to reputable studies then.

 

[Zulfiqar Khan]

you see. i am not a nationalist. i am a historian and an anthropologist. i know what i am taking about. so piss off

Neither Historians nor Anthropologists talk like that.

REAL Historians and Anthropologists have debunked the 'Aryan Invasion' theory.

 

[Zulfiqar Khan]

@pmaitra

Should racism really be tolerated here...?