Bomb blasts in eastern Myanmar kill one

[sydsnyper]

@Ray sir has replied to your stoic denial on what the rohingyas constitute.

You seem to be adamantly wanting to believe that the violence is against indians despite the video from Wirathu explicitly saying who the violence was against.

Attacks on Indian origin people in Burma are nothing new and that's going on before the second world war . If Subhash Chandra Bose would have been alive before the Partition then Burma would have being still part of India .



The whole process of democratic transit hasn't change anything , the military is still in control and using the same ethnic policy of rooting out Indian Origin people . Aung San Suu Kyi has kept long silence on the persecution of rohingya muslims for long time which was mainly the continuation of Burma Junta policy .





these are mainly Ethnic issues in which religions are made excuse .

 

[I-G]

That is hardly any connection.

Babur, the Moghul Emperor of India, was the eldest son of Omar Sheykh Mirzā, ruler of the Fergana Valley, the son of Abū Saʿīd Mirza (and grandson of Miran Shah, who was himself son of Timur) and his wife Qutlugh Nigar Khanum, daughter of Yunus Khan, the ruler of Moghulistan (and great-great grandson of Tughlugh Timur, the son of Esen Buqa I, who was the great-great-great grandson of Chaghatai Khan, the second born son of Genghis Khan).

You are talking about origins of Mughal Dynasty .. Mughals were minority who ruled the majority and these people were of Indian origin . Indian people were living in Burma long before the Mughals came .

Would that make Indians, Mongolians?

Mughals after Akber were already Indians .

Netaji Subash Chandra Bose was cremated in Japan.

It does not make Japan, India!

Wrong example .. Talk here is about Burma being part of India . People of Pala Empire, Sena Dynasty and even Chandra Dynasty all were there in the present day Burma.


Kitna hai badnasib Zafar kafn kay liye,Do gaz zameen bhi na mili ku-e-yar mein.
(How unfortunate is Zafar, for his burial in his own country/ He could not get a grave in his heart's territory).

 

[Ray]

You are talking about origins of Mughal Dynasty .. Mughals were minority who ruled the majority and these people were of Indian origin . Indian people were living in Burma long before the Mughals came .



Mughals after Akber were already Indians .



Wrong example .. Talk here is about Burma being part of India . People of Pala Empire, Sena Dynasty and even Chandra Dynasty all were there in the present day Burma.


Kitna hai badnasib Zafar kafn kay liye,Do gaz zameen bhi na mili ku-e-yar mein.
(How unfortunate is Zafar, for his burial in his own country/ He could not get a grave in his heart's territory).

Here is what you write in support that Rohingya were Indians

They are because Burma was part of India and during 1860 , more than 40% population of Yangon (Rangoon) was of Indian Origin and even last Mughal Emperor is buried there .

If Mughals after Akhbar were Indians, then the Roinhgyas

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-dury-1776.jpg
I-G ↑

1. If you hold this - even last Mughal Emperor is buried there as a proof of Rohingyas being Indians, then how can you reject that Indians, by that logic, should not be Mongolian?

After all, Chengiz Khan was a Mogul and Babur and his descendants were descendants of Chenghiz Khan. And so was Bahadur Shah Zafar since he was the last Mughal emperor and a member of the Timurid Dynasty.


2. Further, if the Mughals after Akhbar became Indians, then by that logic that you propound, the Rohingya, whatever be their origin (and there are many versions) became Burmese, once they settled and become a part of Burma; and not what they were before.

Can the descendants of the people who migrated from what became Pakistan (East and West) and who are Indian citizens claim to be Pakistanis?.

 

[amoy]

I hvnt read through all the posts. but wasnt the blast happening in the northern tip Namkham where there's no Rohingya? Wa or Shan (Thai) supposedly Buddhists? at streets there were some who looked Indian but possibly B'deshis.

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2

 

[I-G]

Here is what you write in support that Rohingya were Indians

You are having very wrong way of understanding .

1. If you hold this - even last Mughal Emperor is buried there as a proof of Rohingyas being Indians, then how can you reject that Indians, by that logic, should not be Mongolian?

After all, Chengiz Khan was a Mogul and Babur and his descendants were descendants of Chenghiz Khan. And so was Bahadur Shah Zafar since he was the last Mughal emperor and a member of the Timurid Dynasty.

I gave the example of Last Mughal Emperor to prove my point that indian origin people were already living in Yangon(Rangoon) and those were around 40% to 50% of the population to whom we know by the name Rohingyas .

2. Further, if the Mughals after Akhbar became Indians, then by that logic that you propound, the Rohingya, whatever be their origin (and there are many versions) became Burmese, once they settled and become a part of Burma; and not what they were before.

Burmese establishment still not consider them Burmese citizens and even they are part of Burma since centuries .

Can the descendants of the people who migrated from what became Pakistan (East and West) and who are Indian citizens claim to be Pakistanis?.

This people are part of that land even before the idea of Pakistan came in existence . And there use to be an Islamabad in that part of Sub Continent which is clearly visible in 1776 Map of Nawabs of Mushirabad .

 

[Ray]

You are having very wrong way of understanding .

Your view.

Not the Gospel Truth.

I gave the example of Last Mughal Emperor to prove my point that indian origin people were already living in Yangon(Rangoon) and those were around 40% to 50% of the population to whom we know by the name Rohingyas .

Being a Bengali with relatives who were settled in Burma, yet they were never considered to be Burman as such, even though their ways had become Burman.

It was a wrong example to give about Bahadur Shah Zafar.

He was not in Burma as a settler, but as a convict.

Rohingyas on the other hand were long settled in Arakan, and who call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan, well before the British took the Bengalis and Madrassis to assist them in running the lower bureaucracy and the plantations etc.

Early evidence of Muslim settlements in Arakan date back to the time of King Narameikhla (1430–1434) of the Kingdom of Mrauk U..

Burmese establishment still not consider them Burmese citizens and even they are part of Burma since centuries

.

The Burmese never recognised anyone but their own ethnic stock and who they accepted to be of their ethnicity.

This people are part of that land even before the idea of Pakistan came in existence . And there use to be an Islamabad in that part of Sub Continent which is clearly visible in 1776 Map of Nawabs of Mushirabad .

I presume then all the people who were in these Empires (see maps below) should all be Indian, right?

Map of the Chola Empire

Surprisingly, the people in those Empire that is beyond the boundaries of Political India do not identify themselves as Indians!!

 

[I-G]

Your view.

Not the Gospel Truth.

So you believe in Gospel Truth .. I never claim that i am telling the truth

Being a Bengali with relatives who were settled in Burma, yet they were never considered to be Burman as such, even though their ways had become Burman.

Its the Burmese military junta which is denying them citizens status and the same is being followed by the new democratic government .

He was not in Burma as a settler, but as a convict.

Talk here is about people of Indian origin who were living in Rangoon during the exile of Bahadur Shah Zafar . We know about Indian origin people in Rangoon because of Bahadur Shah Zafar exile and Grave .40% to 50% population of Rangoon was of Indian origin people .

Rohingyas on the other hand were long settled in Arakan, and who call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan, well before the British took the Bengalis and Madrassis to assist them in running the lower bureaucracy and the plantations etc.

Early evidence of Muslim settlements in Arakan date back to the time of King Narameikhla (1430–1434) of the Kingdom of Mrauk U..

Thanks . the present Bengalis and Madrasis are even called as Rohingyas . So you still doesnt consider all of them Indian ?



.

The Burmese never recognised anyone but their own ethnic stock and who they accepted to be of their ethnicity.

Burmese are themselves mixture of many different nations and tribes who are fighting with each other since decades ..

I presume then all the people who were in these Empires (see maps below) should all be Indian, right?

only in case of Rohingyas, Burmese Hindus and even Malays

Surprisingly, the people in those Empire that is beyond the boundaries of Political India do not identify themselves as Indians!!

they havnt forget the glorious past .. When all the nations are uniting themselves in the name of Slavic nations, European nations, Nordic Nations. Baltic Nations, Arab nations, Iranian tribes , Turkic tribes . then Why cant Indian tribes ?

 

[Ray]

So you believe in Gospel Truth .. I never claim that i am telling the truth

In the English Language, it means 'unquestionable truth'. I thiught you would be aware of such idioms.

However, since you asked, yes, I believed it earlier. Now I don't. Hopefully, that helps your curiosity.

Its the Burmese military junta which is denying them citizens status and the same is being followed by the new democratic government .

Well, there were no military Govt during WW II and even afterwards till n 1962 when General Ne Win led a coup d'état and established a socialist military government, whatever that means.

The simple fact, that is universally known, is that the Bamar people never recognised any others to be of Burma.

The following are recognised as major ethnic groups in Burma by the Govt of Burma.

Kachin
Kayah
Kayin
Chin
Mon
Bamar
Rakhine
Shan

However, the Burmese Chinese and Panthay (Chinese Muslims), Burmese Indians, Rohingya, Anglo-Burmese and Gurkha are not recognised as ethnic groups of Burma by the Govt of Burma.

Talk here is about people of Indian origin who were living in Rangoon during the exile of Bahadur Shah Zafar . We know about Indian origin people in Rangoon because of Bahadur Shah Zafar exile and Grave .40% to 50% population of Rangoon was of Indian origin people .

You may know of Indians living in Burma because of Bhadur Shah Zaffar, but please do not assume that others know of it because of that.

It is time you read novels of Sarat Chandra Chattapadhyaya to realise the history of Indians in Burma through his novels.

The Burmese Indian community emigrated to Burma from the start of British rule in the mid 19th century to the separation of British Burma from British India in 1937.

It might be of interest to inform that the Burmese Indians are largely barred from the civil service and military and are disenfranchised by being labeled as 'foreigners' and 'non-citizens' of Burma.

History indicates that there were a series of anti Indian riots in Burma in the 1930s and also the mass immigration to India of Indian Burmese during the Japanese occupation.

The last of the Indian exodus occurred during 1962, when they were forced out.

Thanks . the present Bengalis and Madrasis are even called as Rohingyas . So you still doesnt consider all of them Indian ?

It is no idea to force a point that is not true.

No Indian of Burmese or any category would find to be called Rohingyas because there is no connection culturally or linguistically to the people of the Arakan.

It is time to realise the reality and not spin your fantasies, if I may say so.

Burmese are themselves mixture of many different nations and tribes who are fighting with each other since decades

The earliest inhabitants of recorded history were the Pyu who entered the Irrawaddy valley from Yunnan.

The Mons. basically came from Thaland and established themselves in the South.

Tthe Mranma (Burmans or Bamar) of the Nanzhao Kingdom, entered the upper Irrawaddy valley in the early 9th century. They went on to establish the Pagan Empire.

The Shans, who came down with the Mongols, stayed and quickly came to dominate much of northern to eastern arc of Burma

The Jingpo or the Kachin are said to have come from Arunachal.

All are recognised as ethnic Groups of Burma.

The Burmese Indian, Rohingyas and some others are NOT recognised as ethnic groups of Burma by the Burmese Govt or the Burmese people.

And they are not so ignorant not to know the difference between people of Indian origin and Rohingyas!

only in case of Rohingyas, Burmese Hindus and even Malays

It may not been convenient for you not to see the maps.

Check the extent of the Mauryan Kingdom. It goes beyond Afghanistan.

Check the extent of the Chola Empire. It goes into Indonesia.

Surely, they don't call themselves Indians. Do they?

Why obfuscate and attempt to circumvent issues to prove a point that is unprovable when the facts stare in your face?

they havnt forget the glorious past .. When all the nations are uniting themselves in the name of Slavic nations, European nations, Nordic Nations. Baltic Nations, Arab nations, Iranian tribes , Turkic tribes . then Why cant Indian tribes ?

I am sure they do exult over their Indian origin and that is why the destroy with total religious glee the Bamiyan Buddhas!

Slavic nations, European nations, Nordic Nations. Baltic Nations, Arab nations, Iranian tribes , Turkic tribes are uniting?

Are they all one nation in each of the groups that you mention?

Further, have the Turks and Kurds united? Have the Kurds themselves united because they still are separate in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Have you some news that they are a new Nation?

 

[I-G]

In the English Language, it means 'unquestionable truth'. I thiught you would be aware of such idioms.

However, since you asked, yes, I believed it earlier. Now I don't. Hopefully, that helps your curiosity.

Here you are making it as Gospel of Truth is that which you are saying . Isn't it ?

Well, there were no military Govt during WW II and even afterwards till n 1962 when General Ne Win led a coup d'état and established a socialist military government, whatever that means.

The simple fact, that is universally known, is that the Bamar people never recognised any others to be of Burma.

I think it was just a tactic used by the majority ethnic group Bamar to first use democracy and then when losing power to minority groups changing itself to Military regime and now again working like a democratic country

The following are recognised as major ethnic groups in Burma by the Govt of Burma.

Kachin
Kayah
Kayin
Chin
Mon
Bamar
Rakhine
Shan

However, the Burmese Chinese and Panthay (Chinese Muslims), Burmese Indians, Rohingya, Anglo-Burmese and Gurkha are not recognised as ethnic groups of Burma by the Govt of Burma.

And the reality of Burma is this only that all the seperatist movements are born out of the recognized ethnic groups namely . Shan, Mon, Kachin, Kayin and Wei People

You may know of Indians living in Burma because of Bhadur Shah Zaffar, but please do not assume that others know of it because of that.

This policy has been adopted by the Burma regime and even the establishment to deny the existence of Indian Origin people

It is time you read novels of Sarat Chandra Chattapadhyaya to realise the history of Indians in Burma through his novels.

The Burmese Indian community emigrated to Burma from the start of British rule in the mid 19th century to the separation of British Burma from British India in 1937.

It might be of interest to inform that the Burmese Indians are largely barred from the civil service and military and are disenfranchised by being labeled as 'foreigners' and 'non-citizens' of Burma.

People of Indian Origins are part of so called Burma since more than the last 2000 years .

History indicates that there were a series of anti Indian riots in Burma in the 1930s and also the mass immigration to India of Indian Burmese during the Japanese occupation.

The last of the Indian exodus occurred during 1962, when they were forced out.

The reason of Anti Indian riots in 1930 were due to the British policies which was more or less to end the Indian presence from Burma and that's why British divided Bengal in 1905 on the basis of religion and then let millions of Eastern Bengalis to die in famine in 1943 and then further divided Bengal between Pakistan and India . The reason Subhash Chandra Bose and the Azad Hind Fauji were fighting British because of the ethnic and religious policy adopted by the British against the Indian nation .

No Indian of Burmese or any category would find to be called Rohingyas because there is no connection culturally or linguistically to the people of the Arakan.

Rohingyas language is similar like bengali .. Is Bengali not Indian language ?

It is time to realise the reality and not spin your fantasies, if I may say so.

I don't come on forum for these spins of fantasies .

The earliest inhabitants of recorded history were the Pyu who entered the Irrawaddy valley from Yunnan.

The Mons. basically came from Thaland and established themselves in the South.

Tthe Mranma (Burmans or Bamar) of the Nanzhao Kingdom, entered the upper Irrawaddy valley in the early 9th century. They went on to establish the Pagan Empire.

The Shans, who came down with the Mongols, stayed and quickly came to dominate much of northern to eastern arc of Burma

The Jingpo or the Kachin are said to have come from Arunachal.

All are recognised as ethnic Groups of Burma.

You are completely denying that there are Indian origin people part of Burma . The existence of Indian people in Burma goes beyond the Gupta Era

The Burmese Indian, Rohingyas and some others are NOT recognised as ethnic groups of Burma by the Burmese Govt or the Burmese people.

Burmese Indians are nothing but bengali people in majority and they do speak the same language .

And they are not so ignorant not to know the difference between people of Indian origin and Rohingyas!

For them all are Indian people .

Check the extent of the Mauryan Kingdom. It goes beyond Afghanistan.

Check the extent of the Chola Empire. It goes into Indonesia.

Surely, they don't call themselves Indians. Do they?

Why obfuscate and attempt to circumvent issues to prove a point that is unprovable when the facts stare in your face?

They do all consider themselves as people of Indian Sub continent from the same stock and this is the reason that the Burmese regime considers them outsiders but these people are part of that land even before the Bamar people came towards Irrawaddy River some 1200 years ago .


I am sure they do exult over their Indian origin and that is why the destroy with total religious glee the Bamiyan Buddhas!

Slavic nations, European nations, Nordic Nations. Baltic Nations, Arab nations, Iranian tribes , Turkic tribes are uniting?

Are they all one nation in each of the groups that you mention?

Further, have the Turks and Kurds united? Have the Kurds themselves united because they still are separate in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Have you some news that they are a new Nation?

 

[I-G]

I am sure they do exult over their Indian origin and that is why the destroy with total religious glee the Bamiyan Buddhas!

Those are Pashtuns but the Rohingyas are bengali people .

Slavic nations, European nations, Nordic Nations. Baltic Nations, Arab nations, Iranian tribes , Turkic tribes are uniting?

Yes and have already united in the shape of European Union

Are they all one nation in each of the groups that you mention?

They claim to be one nation based on the color

Further, have the Turks and Kurds united? Have the Kurds themselves united because they still are separate in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Have you some news that they are a new Nation?

Kurds are Iranian tribes where as Turks are of central Asian origin . these Kurds even seperate themselves from Persians and other Iranian tribes .

 

[Ray]

Here you are making it as Gospel of Truth is that which you are saying . Isn't it ?

It appears that you are wilfully forgetting what you wrote and the connection of my reply.

What you think is not material or relevant.

I think it was just a tactic used by the majority ethnic group Bamar to first use democracy and then when losing power to minority groups changing itself to Military regime and now again working like a democratic country

What is relevant is what the facts on the ground and history suggests.

And the reality of Burma is this only that all the seperatist movements are born out of the recognized ethnic groups namely . Shan, Mon, Kachin, Kayin and Wei People

The reality is what the Burmese Govt recognises.

Separatist movements happen for a variety of reasons, and one must study that to comprehend.


T

his policy has been adopted by the Burma regime and even the establishment to deny the existence of Indian Origin people

Again you are willfully getting tangential, conveniently forgetting your contention in the past posts.

Bahadur Shah Zaffr's internment in no way is the litmus test for your contention.

Bahadur Shah his surrender on 20 September 1857. William Dalrymple in his famed book, The Last Mughal describes the journey to the sad exile thus: "At 4 am on October 7, 332 years after Babur first conquered the city, the last Mughal Emperor left Delhi on a bullock cart. He died in exile on 7 November 1862 in Rangoon

People of Indian Origins are part of so called Burma since more than the last 2000 years .

Really?

How?

And links or references?



T

he reason of Anti Indian riots in 1930 were due to the British policies which was more or less to end the Indian presence from Burma and that's why British divided Bengal in 1905 on the basis of religion and then let millions of Eastern Bengalis to die in famine in 1943 and then further divided Bengal between Pakistan and India . The reason Subhash Chandra Bose and the Azad Hind Fauji were fighting British because of the ethnic and religious policy adopted by the British against the Indian nation .

Indeed!

Everything wrong is on the British.

So, everything wrong in India even now, is all because of the Mughals and their laws, right?

Rohingyas language is similar like bengali .. Is Bengali not Indian language ?

Bengali is similar to Hindi and both are similar to Sanskrit.

So, it means it is but one language, right?

This is called the logic of the undistributed middle.

I don't come on forum for these spins of fantasies .

I am busy for the moment, but I shall let you know how shortly, when I return.

You are completely denying that there are Indian origin people part of Burma . The existence of Indian people in Burma goes beyond the Gupta Era

I am not denying anything.

If the Burmese Govt does not recognise, no matter how much you profess otherwise, it will not change the situation.

Burmese Indians are nothing but bengali people in majority and they do speak the same language .

I hope you are OK.

Good to know that I speak Burmese!

For them all are Indian people .

But that is not what their Constitution says.

I have already mentioned which groups are recognised and which are not.

Are you a Burmese authority that you claim what you claim?

Even the celebrated Aung San Suu Kyi does not recognise the Rohingyas as Burmese!

They do all consider themselves as people of Indian Sub continent from the same stock and this is the reason that the Burmese regime considers them outsiders but these people are part of that land even before the Bamar people came towards Irrawaddy River some 1200 years ago .

Really?

Why the silence on my lower quote?

I am sure they do exult over their Indian origin and that is why the destroy with total religious glee the Bamiyan Buddhas!

Slavic nations, European nations, Nordic Nations. Baltic Nations, Arab nations, Iranian tribes , Turkic tribes are uniting?

Are they all one nation in each of the groups that you mention?

Further, have the Turks and Kurds united? Have the Kurds themselves united because they still are separate in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Have you some news that they are a new Nation?

Silence on my above quote?

 

[Ray]

Those are Pashtuns but the Rohingyas are bengali people .

How charming!

They are Pashtuns and Ronhinyas are Bengalis!

You claimed that Buma was a part of India and so Rohingyas are Indians.

I appended the map of the Mauryan Kingdom, that goes way beyond Pashtun lands and you call them Pashtuns and Rohingyas as Indians.

I marvel at your logic and your continuously changing tack and playing the fool.

I would term that as trolling.

May I caution you that trolling is not permitted.

Yes and have already united in the shape of European Union

And we have the SAARC.

So, what is your point?

European Union is one country?



They claim to be one nation based on the color

Kurds are Iranian tribes where as Turks are of central Asian origin . these Kurds even seperate themselves from Persians and other Iranian tribes .

Kurds speak the Iranian language, but have they united?

The Turkic peoples are a collection of ethnic groups that live in northern, eastern, central and western Asia, northwestern China and parts of eastern Europe including existing societies such as the Turkish people, Magyars(Hungarians), Szekelys, Azerbaijanis, Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyz, Turkmens, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauz, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Balkars, Nogais .

Have they united?

For Heavens sake, please keep to the point and don't dodge issue by changing tack or quoting irrelevant and inane stuff that does not pass muster.

 

[Ray]

On the issue of Rohingyas being Indians. the contention that the Gupta Empire spread all over and hence they are Indians is vacuous.

By that contention, a map appended below of the Maurayan Empire would indicate that all those who are encompassed are Indians. That, in contemporary times, is totally bogus since the people inhabiting those areas will throw such claims into the dustbin.

Likewise with the Chola Empire, of which the map is appended.

Mauryan Empire

Chola Empire

I have also brought out the ethnic groups the Burmese Govt recognises as Burmese people.

I have also brought out the groups that the Burmese Govt doesn't recognise as Burmese people.

It is also fallacious to believe that Rohingyas were Bengalis. If they were, then Bangladesh, the only Bengali country would not throw them out to the wolves!

Therefore, to believe otherwise and forcibly claim would be fallacious and imaginative to assuage a heart's convoluted desire.

To continuous ignoring facts of history and facts as is current, as per international understanding, and continuously dodging by bringing in new and extraneous reasons, highly unconnected, would amount to trolling!

It is time the Moderators take cognisance.

 

[I-G]

What is relevant is what the facts on the ground and history suggests.

And the facts are already in front of us that Burmese establishment doesn't even consider citizens who are dwelling in the land since centuries

The reality is what the Burmese Govt recognises.

Separatist movements happen for a variety of reasons, and one must study that to comprehend.

Even when the Burmese Govt, recognize them and they demand for a separatist state clearly shows about the ethnic divisions within Burma and the reason for these people to raise arms is clearly that they don't trust the Burmese establishment nor the Burmese Junta .

Again you are willfully getting tangential, conveniently forgetting your contention in the past posts.

Bahadur Shah Zaffr's internment in no way is the litmus test for your contention.

Bahadur Shah his surrender on 20 September 1857. William Dalrymple in his famed book, The Last Mughal describes the journey to the sad exile thus: "At 4 am on October 7, 332 years after Babur first conquered the city, the last Mughal Emperor left Delhi on a bullock cart. He died in exile on 7 November 1862 in Rangoon

So you mean to say that Bahadur Shah Zafar was not Indian ? And the people of Indian Origin in Burma just came from somewhere .




Really?

How?

And links or references?

Indians have a long and active history in Burma. Indians have actively engaged in Burma for over 2,000 years in all spheres of life i.e. politics, religion, culture, arts and cuisine and the effect can be seen today.
Indians in Burmese History

Indeed!

Everything wrong is on the British.

So, everything wrong in India even now, is all because of the Mughals and their laws, right?

There was a huge difference between British and Mughals ... Mughals considered themselves as Indians and adopted Indian culture where as the British used divide and rule policy because of which millions of Indians were dead .

Bengali is similar to Hindi and both are similar to Sanskrit.

So, it means it is but one language, right?

This is called the logic of the undistributed middle.

Rohingyas are bengali speaking Indians who are living in Burma since centuries . denying them being Indian just because of their religion doesn't change that reality . Subhash Chandra Bose and Azad hind Fauj was fighting the British because of the injustices to the Indian Origin people .

I am busy for the moment, but I shall let you know how shortly, when I return.

Most welcome .

I am not denying anything.

If the Burmese Govt does not recognise, no matter how much you profess otherwise, it will not change the situation.

This is an ethnic issue .. Majority population denying the existence of minority population who are dwelling there since centuries .

I hope you are OK.

Good to know that I speak Burmese!

Why you think its not the case ? in that part Bengali is the language .

But that is not what their Constitution says.

I have already mentioned which groups are recognised and which are not.

Are you a Burmese authority that you claim what you claim?

Even the celebrated Aung San Suu Kyi does not recognise the Rohingyas as Burmese!

This is what i am saying that they follow an ethnic policy which denies the existence of Indian Origin people who are dwelling since centuries in that land . Burma has been part of Indian Sub continent since ages .

Interesting read

Persisting diaspora concerns in Myanmar - The Hindu

Really?

Indians in Burmese History

 

[I-G]

What is relevant is what the facts on the ground and history suggests.

And the facts are already in front of us that Burmese establishment doesn't even consider citizens who are dwelling in the land since centuries

The reality is what the Burmese Govt recognises.

Separatist movements happen for a variety of reasons, and one must study that to comprehend.

Even when the Burmese Govt, recognize them and they demand for a separatist state clearly shows about the ethnic divisions within Burma and the reason for these people to raise arms is clearly that they don't trust the Burmese establishment nor the Burmese Junta .

Again you are willfully getting tangential, conveniently forgetting your contention in the past posts.

Bahadur Shah Zaffr's internment in no way is the litmus test for your contention.

Bahadur Shah his surrender on 20 September 1857. William Dalrymple in his famed book, The Last Mughal describes the journey to the sad exile thus: "At 4 am on October 7, 332 years after Babur first conquered the city, the last Mughal Emperor left Delhi on a bullock cart. He died in exile on 7 November 1862 in Rangoon

So you mean to say that Bahadur Shah Zafar was not Indian ? And the people of Indian Origin in Burma just came from somewhere .




Really?

How?

And links or references?

Indians have a long and active history in Burma. Indians have actively engaged in Burma for over 2,000 years in all spheres of life i.e. politics, religion, culture, arts and cuisine and the effect can be seen today.
Indians in Burmese History

Indeed!

Everything wrong is on the British.

So, everything wrong in India even now, is all because of the Mughals and their laws, right?

There was a huge difference between British and Mughals ... Mughals considered themselves as Indians and adopted Indian culture where as the British used divide and rule policy because of which millions of Indians were dead .

Bengali is similar to Hindi and both are similar to Sanskrit.

So, it means it is but one language, right?

This is called the logic of the undistributed middle.

Rohingyas are bengali speaking Indians who are living in Burma since centuries . denying them being Indian just because of their religion doesn't change that reality . Subhash Chandra Bose and Azad hind Fauj was fighting the British because of the injustices to the Indian Origin people .

I am busy for the moment, but I shall let you know how shortly, when I return.

Most welcome .

I am not denying anything.

If the Burmese Govt does not recognise, no matter how much you profess otherwise, it will not change the situation.

This is an ethnic issue .. Majority population denying the existence of minority population who are dwelling there since centuries .

I hope you are OK.

Good to know that I speak Burmese!

Why you think its not the case ? in that part Bengali is the language .

But that is not what their Constitution says.

I have already mentioned which groups are recognised and which are not.

Are you a Burmese authority that you claim what you claim?

Even the celebrated Aung San Suu Kyi does not recognise the Rohingyas as Burmese!

This is what i am saying that they follow an ethnic policy which denies the existence of Indian Origin people who are dwelling since centuries in that land . Burma has been part of Indian Sub continent since ages .

Interesting read

Persisting diaspora concerns in Myanmar - The Hindu

Really?

Indians in Burmese History

 

[I-G]

You claimed that Buma was a part of India and so Rohingyas are Indians.

Burma for centuries is part of Indian Sub Continent .

I appended the map of the Mauryan Kingdom, that goes way beyond Pashtun lands and you call them Pashtuns and Rohingyas as Indians.



I marvel at your logic and your continuously changing tack and playing the fool.

I would term that as trolling.

May I caution you that trolling is not permitted.

Its you who is playing around alot .. What the Rohingyas has to do with the blasting of Buddha statue by the Talibans ? This is the reason i told that those are pasthuns and these are rohingyas ..

What has happened to your way of understanding even simply things ? Just keep on mixing different issues and giving them religious color .

And we have the SAARC.

So, what is your point?

In SAARC its just for promotion of economic, social progress and cultural development but with close borders

European Union is one country?

It is functioning like one country with open borders

Kurds speak the Iranian language, but have they united?

Kurdish language comes under Iranian language but Kurds keep themselves seperate from other Iranian nations .

The Turkic peoples are a collection of ethnic groups that live in northern, eastern, central and western Asia, northwestern China and parts of eastern Europe including existing societies such as the Turkish people, Magyars(Hungarians), Szekelys, Azerbaijanis, Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyz, Turkmens, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauz, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Balkars, Nogais .

Have they united?

About Us | Türksoy

For Heavens sake, please keep to the point and don't dodge issue by changing tack or quoting irrelevant and inane stuff that does not pass muster.

As i see you still need lot of time to get my points and you are not well versed in international relations . Just you write alot mixing different other issues instead of talking about the real subject .

 

[Ray]

And the facts are already in front of us that Burmese establishment doesn't even consider citizens who are dwelling in the land since centuries

Just too bad.

Now, what are you going to do about it.

Attack Burma singlehandedly (i.e. you alone) and take the Govt of Burma by the scruff of the neck and tell them that you will hang them if they don't agree with you?

Heard of the will o' the wisp?

Or Don Quixote?

Even when the Burmese Govt, recognize them and they demand for a separatist state clearly shows about the ethnic divisions within Burma and the reason for these people to raise arms is clearly that they don't trust the Burmese establishment nor the Burmese Junta

Really?

How?.

Those who are recognised ethnic groups have reasons to rise in rebellion.

But not those who are not recognised.

It is like illegal Bangladeshis in India demanding that they be allowed to become Ministers!

So you mean to say that Bahadur Shah Zafar was not Indian ? And the people of Indian Origin in Burma just came from somewhere

.

He was an Indian.

So, by your logic, illegal Bangladeshis, who have come from Bangladesh, should all be recognised as Indians, right?

Indians have a long and active history in Burma. Indians have actively engaged in Burma for over 2,000 years in all spheres of life i.e. politics, religion, culture, arts and cuisine and the effect can be seen today.
Indians in Burmese History

Pyus were a mixture as per your link. They may with many migrants who came from India, but they were Pyus in the final analysis and not Indians. And Pyus are recognised Burmese ethnic group.

Since you are from Hyderabad, let me ask you the following:

The Asaf Jah dynasty (Nizam's) was of Turkic origin from the region around Samarkand in modern day Uzbekistan.

Who would he be? An Uzbek or an Indian?

You claim Bahadur Shah Zaffar as an Indian. Good. How come he is not Mongol?

So, if the Pyus interacted with Indians, does it make them Indians, or Burmese?

And likewise, all other issues raised in the link finally boils down that even those you claim to be Indians were assimilated and became a part of the ethnic groups that are recognised as Burmese.

There was a huge difference between British and Mughals ... Mughals considered themselves as Indians and adopted Indian culture where as the British used divide and rule policy because of which millions of Indians were dead .

Huge difference?

Mughals adopted Indian culture or made the Indians adopted the Mughal culture that was alien to the Indian culture?

Do read this when you have the time.

Jezia imposed in HIndus by Moghuls
The People Who Changed the World - Sashakt - Google Books

Note, the Mughals did not divide and rule, by imposed their way by force and otherwise, subjugated the people and tried to convert them to their ways, religion and life.

More ruthless is you ask me.

Rohingyas are bengali speaking Indians who are living in Burma since centuries . denying them being Indian just because of their religion doesn't change that reality . Subhash Chandra Bose and Azad hind Fauj was fighting the British because of the injustices to the Indian Origin people

.


Once again you distort history to suit your convenience.

Subash Chandra Bose had nothing to do with fighting the British against the injustice against people of Indian origin.

It had nothing to do with people of Indian origin.

He was fighting for India's Independence and not of Rohingyas in case that is what you imply by the fallacious thought that Rohingyas are Indians.

This is an ethnic issue .. Majority population denying the existence of minority population who are dwelling there since centuries .

For Burmese they don't think so.

And that is the reality.


Why you think its not the case ? in that part Bengali is the language .

Because I speak Bengali and not Burmese, nor do I find the language spoken by Rohingyas to be remotely similar. My daughter had a maid from the Rohingya community when she was in Malaysia and when I visited my daughter, the Rohingya maid in no way resembled a Bengali, nor her language was in anyway connected to Bengali.

This is what i am saying that they follow an ethnic policy which denies the existence of Indian Origin people who are dwelling since centuries in that land . Burma has been part of Indian Sub continent since ages .

Just too bad, what?

read

Persisting diaspora concerns in Myanmar - The Hindu

If only wishes were horses, beggars would ride!

Indians in Burmese History

Interesting read, but my answer is above on what I had written about the Pyu and India.

 

[I-G]

Just too bad.

Now, what are you going to do about it.

Attack Burma singlehandedly (i.e. you alone) and take the Govt of Burma by the scruff of the neck and tell them that you will hang them if they don't agree with you?

Heard of the will o' the wisp?

Or Don Quixote?

Here its about the Indian origin people who are being butchered be it Muslims or Hindus . but the religious politics like always is being played by the global powers .. Its time for Indians to wake up and see the reality .

Those who are recognised ethnic groups have reasons to rise in rebellion.

But not those who are not recognised.

Those are ethnic issues behind the rebellion and thats going on since decades .

It is like illegal Bangladeshis in India demanding that they be allowed to become Ministers!

Just dont be confused between Indian Bengali Muslims and Bangladeshis . Bangladeshi cant reach up to the minister level


.

He was an Indian.

Wasnt he buried in that territory which was part of India ?

So, by your logic, illegal Bangladeshis, who have come from Bangladesh, should all be recognised as Indians, right?

Bangladeshis are different from Rohingyas . And these people are not part of Bangladesh .

Pyus were a mixture as per your link. They may with many migrants who came from India, but they were Pyus in the final analysis and not Indians. And Pyus are recognised Burmese ethnic group.

My point was this to prove the existence of Indians since more than 2000 years . The present day Burmese are not the Pyus but Bamar People who came from upper Burma .. Indian Origin People are dwelling in that land since centuries and the Rohingyas are even one of them .
Since you are from Hyderabad, let me ask you the following:

The Asaf Jah dynasty (Nizam's) was of Turkic origin from the region around Samarkand in modern day Uzbekistan.

Who would he be? An Uzbek or an Indian?

Asaf Jah Dynasties kings did inter marriages and even the Hindu Vazir Kishen Parshed was having 4 Muslim wives . one was from the family of Nizam . So does that makes them Indian or Turkic ?

You claim Bahadur Shah Zaffar as an Indian. Good. How come he is not Mongol?

Both Jahangir, Shahjahan and Bahadur Shah Zafar had Rajput mothers.

So, if the Pyus interacted with Indians, does it make them Indians, or Burmese?

There was no concept of Burma that time but there was Indian tribes and Indian nation . The present Bamar People came from Upper Side .

And likewise, all other issues raised in the link finally boils down that even those you claim to be Indians were assimilated and became a part of the ethnic groups that are recognised as Burmese.

Problem is this that you are just arguing for the sake of argument without seeing the historical angle . India is more than 5000 years old civilization and only living civilization . People of India will be always Indian even if they follow any religion .

Huge difference?

Mughals adopted Indian culture or made the Indians adopted the Mughal culture that was alien to the Indian culture?

There were inter marriages between Mughals and Indian tribes and all the Mughal Emperors were having Rajput Mothers and this makes them Indians and even there were HIndus who were born to Mughal females from Indian fathers .

Do read this when you have the time.

Jezia imposed in HIndus by Moghuls
The People Who Changed the World - Sashakt - Google Books

Jizaya was a tax taken yearly just from the able male and this tax system was existed even before Islam. Or you mean to say that there was no taxation system in Ancient India ? Even the Crusaders use to take tax from Muslims for even praying .

Note, the Mughals did not divide and rule, by imposed their way by force and otherwise, subjugated the people and tried to convert them to their ways, religion and life.

More ruthless is you ask me.

Mughals were warriors those main aim was to keep power in thier hands and they used all sorts of tactics to rule like any other dynasty .

.

Once again you distort history to suit your convenience.

its your habit to distort history

Subash Chandra Bose had nothing to do with fighting the British against the injustice against people of Indian origin.

It had nothing to do with people of Indian origin.

Subash Chandra Bose raised Azad Hind Fauj to give the rights to the Indian nation and that was self rule and Independence . Even Subhash Chandra Bose was jailed in Burma and even Azad Hind Fauj started to fight against British from Burma only .And the first donation to the Azad Hind Fauj was given by Abdul Marfani who was from Rangoon of 1 Crore . You still dont know much about Indian history .

He was fighting for India's Independence and not of Rohingyas in case that is what you imply by the fallacious thought that Rohingyas are Indians.

He was fighting for the rights of Indian nation and even to secure the borders . Why you think that British punished Eastern Bengalis and made them to strave ? it was nothing but ethnic cleansing of Indian nation which resulted in deaths of millions of bengali Indians .

For Burmese they don't think so.

And that is the reality.

They even accept it

Britain to offer military training to Burma to help end ethnic conflicts - Telegraph

Because I speak Bengali and not Burmese, nor do I find the language spoken by Rohingyas to be remotely similar. My daughter had a maid from the Rohingya community when she was in Malaysia and when I visited my daughter, the Rohingya maid in no way resembled a Bengali, nor her language was in anyway connected to Bengali.

Why its hard for you to accept people of Indian origin as Indians ? they are still connected to India via culture and language and are getting killed because they are of Indian origin .

Interesting read, but my answer is above on what I had written about the Pyu and India.

The Present day Bamar people came from upper side and they are the ones who are denying the rights of the people who are living in that land since centuaries .

 

[Ray]

Here its about the Indian origin people who are being butchered be it Muslims or Hindus . but the religious politics like always is being played by the global powers .. Its time for Indians to wake up and see the reality .

The reality is for all to see.

By your logic, India should intervene in Sri Lanka because of the genocide done to Sri Lankan Tamils. But can India do so?

The last time India went to Sri Lanka was on a request from the SL Govt. Do you think India can just walk into SL and do what it wants?

Understand geopolitics and international niceties. Emotions cannot rule international relationships.

Once again you see issues only on religious lines. To quote you – ' Here its about the Indian origin people who are being butchered be it Muslims or Hindus . but the religious politics like always is being played by the global powers

How does it matter whether Hindus, Muslims or Christians are being killed? What matters is people of INDIAN ORIGIN are being killed.

Hindus are regularly being killed by the Jammait – BNP combine. What can India do about that?

All these issues have to be dealt through international protocols and not by emotions taking over, and that too, because co religionists are being killed – an affliction you show in all your posts.

Those are ethnic issues behind the rebellion and thats going on since decades .

How does the Shan and Kachin rebellion concern India?

We are not thekedars of Burma, or are we?

Do we care about Saudi and AQ sponsored terror and war being waged in Syria?

Just dont be confused between Indian Bengali Muslims and Bangladeshis . Bangladeshi cant reach up to the minister level

I think you should be the last one to tell me about Bengalis, be they Hindu or Muslim.

Bangladeshis have not only access to Govt job, but also sneaked in the police and military. So, how long will it take for them to be high in the Govt and political order?

Wasnt he buried in that territory which was part of India ?

So?

Check your earlier post and how you wished to indicate that because Zaffar was buried in Burma, Rohigyas were Indians as others.

Now, if Zafar felt that Burma was India, was he ridiculous when he wrote:

"Kitna hai badnaseeb Zafar dafn ke liye/ Do gaz zameen bhi na mili koo-e-yaar mein"?

Bangladeshis are different from Rohingyas . And these people are not part of Bangladesh .

So, now you agree that they are not a part of Bangladesh. Therefore, they cannot be of Indian origin either, since Arakan is contiguous to Bangladesh or East Bengal, the closest to undivided India.

My point was this to prove the existence of Indians since more than 2000 years . The present day Burmese are not the Pyus but Bamar People who came from upper Burma .. Indian Origin People are dwelling in that land since centuries and the Rohingyas are even one of them .

Read Burmese history and then come back.

Pyus are the first recorded people of Burma.

Why do you flog a dead horse?

Please check the very link you gave and see the convoluted links you seem to weave.

Asaf Jah Dynasties kings did inter marriages and even the Hindu Vazir Kishen Parshed was having 4 Muslim wives . one was from the family of Nizam . So does that makes them Indian or Turkic ?

Likewise, any person of Indian origin that you claim intermarried in Burma, what would they be?

However, if they remained a separate ethnic group, what would they be?

Both Jahangir, Shahjahan and Bahadur Shah Zafar had Rajput mothers.

So, you feel that if there is a trace of Hindu blood, it is the litmus test of being Indian.

How come?

Are you suggesting that the Muslims of India, who do not have a trace of Hindu blood, are not Indians?

This is the type of justification that really gets my goat.

There was no concept of Burma that time but there was Indian tribes and Indian nation . The present Bamar People came from Upper Side .

You have shallow knowledge and so I cannot waste my time.

It is like saying there was no nation called India before the British came. Names that are current is not what decide nationhood. Occupation of an area by an ethnic group does.

Problem is this that you are just arguing for the sake of argument without seeing the historical angle . India is more than 5000 years old civilization and only living civilization . People of India will be always Indian even if they follow any religion .

The problem is that you wish to justify the unjustifiable just to prove that the Rohingyas are India.

On the issue of what you wrote – People of India will be always Indian even if they follow any religion, your hypocrisy and flitting like a bee from flower to flower (inconsistency of thought) stands exposed.

Your wrote:

Both Jahangir, Shahjahan and Bahadur Shah Zafar had Rajput mothers.

Does it not show that you are justifying that one is an Indian, if he has a trace of Hindu blood?

Or this ridiculous statement of yours:

There were inter marriages between Mughals and Indian tribes and all the Mughal Emperors were having Rajput Mothers and this makes them Indians and even there were HIndus who were born to Mughal females from Indian fathers .

Jizaya was a tax taken yearly just from the able male and this tax system was existed even before Islam. Or you mean to say that there was no taxation system in Ancient India ? Even the Crusaders use to take tax from Muslims for even praying .

It appears that you did not read the link I gave.

Here it is again

Jezia imposed in HIndus by Moghuls
Link

We are well aware of Jezia and what it means.

And how does the Crusades affect India?

And who cares what imposition the Crusade did to those conquered?

We are talking of India.

Mughals were warriors those main aim was to keep power in thier hands and they used all sorts of tactics to rule like any other dynasty .

British were more sophisticated it appears.

They wanted a Kingdom without the burdens of society, and to quote you, used all sorts of tactics to rule.

Cleverer little tykes, what ho?

its your habit to distort history

Why are you acting as my 'echo' and using my words.

Is originality beyond you?

Subash Chandra Bose raised Azad Hind Fauj to give the rights to the Indian nation and that was self rule and Independence . Even Subhash Chandra Bose was jailed in Burma and even Azad Hind Fauj started to fight against British from Burma only .And the first donation to the Azad Hind Fauj was given by Abdul Marfani who was from Rangoon of 1 Crore . You still dont know much about Indian history .

Spare me this tripe!

Read about the INA and then come back.

Where did you expect Netaji to start?

Japan?

Delhi from there was bahoot door!

Burma was the spring board, located adjacent to India!

He was fighting for the rights of Indian nation and even to secure the borders . Why you think that British punished Eastern Bengalis and made them to strave ? it was nothing but ethnic cleansing of Indian nation which resulted in deaths of millions of bengali Indians .

Indians, but not Rohingyas under any stretch of imagination, if you will.

They even accept it

Britain to offer military training to Burma to help end ethnic conflicts - Telegraph

Precisely.

That is exactly what I am trying to tell you throughout this thread.

The Burmese don't recognise the Rohingyas as Burmese!

Why its hard for you to accept people of Indian origin as Indians ? they are still connected to India via culture and language and are getting killed because they are of Indian origin .

It is hard for me to accept that Rohingyas are Indians, is because they are not.

If you insist very arduously, then at best they could be Bangladeshis and from Chittagong Hill Tract. And being Muslims, that would be the closest to India that you can, with your fertile imagination, ascribe to.

And Bangladeshis are not by a long chalk, Indians!

The Present day Bamar people came from upper side and they are the ones who are denying the rights of the people who are living in that land since centuaries .

Too bad, what?

You don't like that?

Pick up a weapon and charge into Burma!

Spare us your wrath. We are not Burmese!