Was there local support for invaders?

[spikey360]

and I am proud Infidel .....................go and read more history & science ................and you will also become Infidel .​

Haha! He is not a Shia, but an expat Bengali Hindu Communist living in Amrika.

 

[Bharat Ek Khoj]

@spikey360
Funny thing is casteism/untouchability even exists in converted people and our highly knowledged mod @pmaitra thinks they were converted because of casteism

 

[spikey360]

@spikey360
Funny thing is casteism/untouchability even exists in converted people and our highly knowledged mod @pmaitra thinks they were converted because of casteism

Funny indeed.
Also note, these people are still enjoying the fruits of reservation even after converting. So, one can understand how shallow their conversion really were.
Most people who were converted in the medival ages into Islam were done so at the tip of the dagger. It is a shame that we Hindus could not wield a dagger and point back at them at that time.
However, perhaps a time in the future will come when we shall take back what is rightfully ours and that is - demography.

 

[pmaitra]

Escape from Casteism
Majority of Afghans and Bangladeshis were not even Hindus before they got mass-converted to Islam. Majority of them were Buddhists. Surprise!!!!

Yes, they were Buddhists. Why did they convert to Buddhism? As a matter of fact, why did people convert to Jainism and Sikhism? Surprise?

Extent of the spread of Islam in a particular region is directly proportional to the impunity with which the Islamic invaders were allowed to rule over that particular region. These regions are usually the ones which exist at the edges of the map.

Impunity of the invaders? The Afghans, when Muslim, took several times more casualties by never gave up fighting the Soviet Army and later the US Army, but when they were Buddhists, they succumbed? Surprise?

About the golden military rule
Actually it talks about Aggressor's advantage. Defender has to succeed every time, aggressor has to succeed only once.

Wrong. Don't know where you pick these theories from. The defender always has an advantage keeping all other things equal. Most of the cases where the defender lost, is simply because they did not have local support or were unpopular. Take the Lodhi Dynasty for example. Ibrahim Lodhi's cousins liased with Babur long before he actually arrived in India.

 

[pmaitra]

@spikey360
Funny thing is casteism/untouchability even exists in converted people and our highly knowledged mod @pmaitra thinks they were converted because of casteism

I certainly don't believe such large portions of our population converted under force. This is a ridiculous thing to suggest. This is nothing but a fantasy.

 

[Bharat Ek Khoj]

[MOD Edit: Focus on the topic and counter the points. Any more personal attacks and you will be ejected from this thread.]

 

[pmaitra]

its more like, the effects of the karma of a thief are borne by his family. extend it to country, and its as true and real as can get.

The effects of a thief are borne by the family unless that thief and family are dissociated. It is a matter of the environment one is raised. Not everything is related to birth or blood.

"Birth is not the sign of being son."

See link: http://www.shortstories.co.in/pind-daan/

 

[pmaitra]

and I am proud Infidel .....................go and read more history & science ................and you will also become Infidel .​

I don't care who or what you are. It is also unimportant what I am.

When people run out of arguments, they resort to attacking the messenger. When you run out of arguments, it is an indicator, you should quit.

 

[Bharat Ek Khoj]

lol, you want to call others traitors, but if it come backs to you, you want to ban or block from thread ?
Btw, prove your fantasy.

 

[pmaitra]

Bharatvarsh had been invaded for centuries. Still, it not only survived, but resurged and is now poised to grow.

Look at India during Chandragupta Maurya and look at India today.

How has India grown?

When you are being invaded for centuries after centuries, no matter how strong you initially are, your advantages and capabilities erode severely @pmaitra. This is also a military doctrine.

Whenever there is any invasion, there is a possibility of counter punitive invasion. Now, possibility is not capability.

Napoleon invaded Russia. Next thing we know, the Tsar's Army was marching in the streets of Paris.

Hitler invaded USSR. Soon after, the Soviet Flag was flying over the Reichstag.

Now, take into account how Jai Singh of Amber along with Shah Jahan's forces captured Kandahar. Such attempts have been few and far between.

I am pretty confident that even USA won't be able to survive a decade of foreign onslaught (assuming for a moment, that, nuclear bombs were never invented.) Not one civilisation of the old world survived this far. However, Bharat did, and not only did it survive, so did Sanatan Dharma.

No country will last forever, not even the USA.

Sanatan Dharma exists only in theory. In practice, we are stuck with corrupted form of Vedic religion, which is Hinduism today.

So it would be foolish and simplistic to assume that Bharat got invaded and converted because people were weak or because people wanted to convert. When you are suffering an onslaught spanning centuries, some changes would be visible. Doesn't mean that you lost or you were weak. Only the strong survive. In this case Bharat survived, all else perished.

There may be some truth to all hypotheses.

See my response to @DingDong.

 

[pmaitra]

lol, you want to call others traitors, but if it come backs to you, you want to ban or block from thread ?
Btw, prove your fantasy.

I have not called any member a traitor. Neither should you.

Since you have no argument to offer, you have been duly ejected.

 

[DingDong]

Yes, they were Buddhists. Why did they convert to Buddhism? As a matter of fact, why did people convert to Jainism and Sikhism? Surprise?


Impunity of the invaders? The Afghans, when Muslim, took several times more casualties by never gave up fighting the Soviet Army and later the US Army, but when they were Buddhists, they succumbed? Surprise?


Wrong. Don't know where you pick these theories from. The defender always has an advantage keeping all other things equal. Most of the cases where the defender lost, is simply because they did not have local support or were unpopular. Take the Lodhi Dynasty for example. Ibrahim Lodhi's cousins liased with Babur long before he actually arrived in India.

Allow me to ask you a counter question. Why did the majority of Hindus NOT convert?

Do you know what kind of advantage does a gun provides to it's owner? A middle-age spearman could easily take down a physically disadvantaged spear man. On the other hand, a 12 year old carrying AK-47 is as deadly as a 6 foot tall guy carrying an AK-47.

Afghans never gave up fighting because they had got sound logistical and financial support from one external player or another. Just because they never gave up fighting doesn't mean that they are independent and masters of their own destiny. Fortunately the modern occupational forces are hardly interested in carrying out forced conversions or make use of brutal tactics at par with the ones used in medieval period.

I don't need to pick any theory book, look around, evidences are scattered everywhere. Doesn't matter how and why defenders lost, but they LOST eventually against a persistent and motivated enemy.

Muslims did not conquer the Indian subcontinent in a decade, neither did the British, it took several waves and centuries, and finally the defense crumbled.

 

[pmaitra]

Allow me to ask you a counter question. Why did the majority of Hindus NOT convert?

Any particular reason you don't want to answer my question?

"The Afghans, when Muslim, took several times more casualties by never gave up fighting the Soviet Army and later the US Army, but when they were Buddhists, they succumbed? Surprise?"

Do you know what kind of advantage does a gun provides to it's owner? A middle-age spearman could easily take down a physically disadvantaged spear man. On the other hand, a 12 year old carrying AK-47 is as deadly as a 6 foot tall guy carrying an AK-47.

Yes, power flows from the barrel of the gun. Don't worry who said it, because if you do, the truth might be unpalatable.

There was no gun when the Afghans converted to Buddhism or when Islam first spread to Central Asia and India was well advanced in metallurgy and weapon making. This answers your question. The first rudimentary application of gunpowder happened in the mid 1300s, and the knowledge of gunpowder traveled from China to west, not the other way around.

Moreover, Islam did not purely spread by invading armies. It spread via evangelism, including Sufi Evangelism, just like Christianity spread by evangelism, and it is often referred to as Nestorianism.

Afghans never gave up fighting because they had got sound logistical and financial support from one external player or another. Just because they never gave up fighting doesn't mean that they are independent and masters of their own destiny. Fortunately the modern occupational forces are hardly interested in carrying out forced conversions.

The modern occupational forces are not interested in religious conversion, but they certainly are interested in nation building and changing the political and social systems of the occupied territories.

I don't need to pick any theory book, look around, evidences are scattered everywhere. Doesn't matter how and why defenders lost, but they LOST eventually against a persistent and motivated enemy.

Yes, persistence and motivation - where does it come from? Faith does play a role, along with greed.

Muslims did not conquer the Indian subcontinent in a decade, neither did the British, it took several waves and centuries, and finally the defense crumbled.

Yes, it happened in waves.

 

[airtel]

When people run out of arguments, they resort to attacking the messenger. When you run out of arguments, it is an indicator, you should quit.

as i already said I am a proud Infidel ................i dont care about your self proclaimed messenger .........and yes dont try to defend the criminals , rapists & pedophiles .


those attackers were also following your self proclaimed messenger .

 

[pmaitra]

how can you accept it ?? i dont expect honesty from you ........................you are extremely biased , thousands of proves and you will never accept it .......................as far as fantasies are concerned ............

believing in a self proclaimed prophet is called fantasy , believing in "allah " is called fantasy ............believing in jannat & 72 hoors is called .....fantasy ................

go and read some science instead of Koran ......................


Islam is already defeated , future is Atheism

Who is not biased?

Everybody in this world is biased. Artificial Intelligence 101.

I sincerely believe I am being honest. I am quite outspoken and will stick to my views even if in the minority. I don't care if you don't like what I say.

N.B.: I am outspoken but I don't resort to BC/MC/Randi like some members like to do. Understand the difference between being outspoken and being vulgar.

I have read the Koran as well as plenty on science. I will return the favour by telling you this: Read a grammar book and try to avoid those multiple dots and multiple spaces before the comma.

 

[A chauhan]

Interesting thread , keep it going guys.

 

[DingDong]

Any particular reason you don't want to answer my question?

"The Afghans, when Muslim, took several times more casualties by never gave up fighting the Soviet Army and later the US Army, but when they were Buddhists, they succumbed? Surprise?"



Yes, power flows from the barrel of the gun. Don't worry who said it, because if you do, the truth might be unpalatable.

There was no gun when the Afghans converted to Buddhism or when Islam first spread to Central Asia and India was well advanced in metallurgy and weapon making. This answers your question. The first rudimentary application of gunpowder happened in the mid 1300s, and the knowledge of gunpowder traveled from China to west, not the other way around.

Moreover, Islam did not purely spread by invading armies. It spread via evangelism, including Sufi Evangelism, just like Christianity spread by evangelism, and it is often referred to as Nestorianism.



The modern occupational forces are not interested in religious conversion, but they certainly are interested in nation building and changing the political and social systems of the occupied territories.


Yes, persistence and motivation - where does it come from? Faith does play a role, along with greed.


Yes, it happened in waves.

Islam/Christianity spread into new areas (Particularly Asia and South America) in three phases:
A. Forced Conversion
B. Cultural Genocide
C. Evangelism

Step (A) provides the foothold. Step (B) creates the void, step (C) fills in the void. Step (B) requires local collaborators, the first and the second generation of converts. Step (B) doesn't only involve bloodshed, it involves gradual destruction of cultural symbols, propaganda etc.

Question to be asked how was Step (B) made possible in regions where Pagans were majority? How are these converts who are supposed to be the minority so effective? Read ahead:

These organized religions having a central ruler (their god) and Synchronized Rituals (see how the crowd synchronizes itself during offering of Namaz) gradually program their followers into acting like a single entity even though they may be having internal conflicts. Just like soldiers who undergo behavioral programming during training (What do you think is the significance of those Marches on Drum beats?).

These organized groups act together and can defeat larger but disorganized groups.

Visiting temples or Pandaals during Durga Puja doesn't qualify as Synchronized Ritual, that is because actions of an individual devotee are not synchronized with the actions of the crowd.

This underlying strength of Islam was recognized by one of the great Indian leaders named named Bal Gangadhar Tilak who revived the Ganpati Celebrations.


Those who give up fighting are called Slaves. Afghans did not give up fighting just like local kingdoms did not give up the fight against the Islamic invaders, but such fights are of no consequence against a stronger, resolute and violent enemy.

Had Indians (incl. Afghans etc) been the aggressors, Indic Religions would have spread to Arab than the other way around.

 

[pmaitra]

Islam/Christianity spread into new areas (Particularly Asia and South America) in three phases:
A. Forced Conversion
B. Cultural Genocide
C. Evangelism

Step (A) provides the foothold. Step (B) creates the void, step (C) fills in the void. Step (B) requires local collaborators, the first and the second generation of converts. Step (B) doesn't only involve bloodshed, it involves gradual destruction of cultural symbols, propaganda etc.

Question to be asked how was Step (B) made possible in regions where Pagans were majority? How are these converts who are supposed to be the minority so effective? Read ahead:

These organized religions having a central ruler (their god) and Synchronized Rituals (see how the crowd synchronizes itself during offering of Namaz) gradually program their followers into acting like a single entity even though they may be having internal conflicts. Just like soldiers who undergo behavioral programming during training (What do you think is the significance of those Marches on Drum beats?).

These organized groups act together and can defeat larger but disorganized groups.

Visiting temples or Pandaals during Durga Puja doesn't qualify as Synchronized Ritual, that is because actions of an individual devotee are not synchronized with the actions of the crowd.

This underlying strength of Islam was recognized by one of the great Indian leaders named named Bal Gangadhar Tilak who revived the Ganpati Celebrations.


Those who give up fighting are called Slaves. Afghans did not give up fighting just like local kingdoms did not give up the fight against the Islamic invaders, but such fights are of no consequence against a stronger, resolute and violent enemy.

Had Indians (incl. Afghans etc) been the aggressors, Indic Religions would have spread to Arab than the other way around.

Yes, I largely agree. As I said, there may be some truth in all the hypotheses.

I will respond in detail later. I have to go now.

 

[Berkut]

Bharatvarsh had been invaded for centuries. Still, it not only survived, but resurged and is now poised to grow.
When you are being invaded for centuries after centuries, no matter how strong you initially are, your advantages and capabilities erode severely @pmaitra. This is also a military doctrine.
I am pretty confident that even USA won't be able to survive a decade of foreign onslaught (assuming for a moment, that, nuclear bombs were never invented.) Not one civilisation of the old world survived this far. However, Bharat did, and not only did it survive, so did Sanatan Dharma.
So it would be foolish and simplistic to assume that Bharat got invaded and converted because people were weak or because people wanted to convert. When you are suffering an onslaught spanning centuries, some changes would be visible. Doesn't mean that you lost or you were weak. Only the strong survive. In this case Bharat survived, all else perished.

Very interesting point raised. Even though invaders came for centuries and caused immense damage, Bharat still remains.... well,,, Bharat

 

[pmaitra]

@DingDong, first off, that was a well written post, and has some very thoughtful points. Now, I will address those points in detail.

Islam/Christianity spread into new areas (Particularly Asia and South America) in three phases:
A. Forced Conversion
B. Cultural Genocide
C. Evangelism

Step (A) provides the foothold. Step (B) creates the void, step (C) fills in the void. Step (B) requires local collaborators, the first and the second generation of converts. Step (B) doesn't only involve bloodshed, it involves gradual destruction of cultural symbols, propaganda etc.

I agree with all three points, but not necessarily with the order. Consider the following points:

• Forced conversion cannot happen without an overwhelming military victory.
• Not all victories were overwhelming military victories.
• Forced conversion cannot happen without a void.
• One cannot create a void if the defending society is united.

Indian society was not united. Also, less than one-eights of Indians were actually involved in warfare. The rest were not allowed to participate. It is not that they were incapable, but simply, not allowed to. This is a direct result of casteism. I call that a void in military terms.

Now, how does one get a foothold? I think your line of thinking follows from the assumption that if the aggressor is able to achieve one victory, heavens break loose. See what you had written earlier.

About the golden military rule
Actually it talks about Aggressor's advantage. Defender has to succeed every time, aggressor has to succeed only once.

If you look at several instances in history, and I can cite the example of Napoleon's invasion of Russia, you will see, they did have one victory. However, they were incapable of converting that foothold into anything substantial as the Russians followed a policy of scorched earth and the Cossacks constantly harassed the French. Basically, no matter what, the Russians were not going to have anything to do with the French.

On the other hand, if you look at the Spanish conquest of Latin America, you will see that there were a series of overwhelming military victories, by virtue of, as you had correctly said earlier, superior weapons. For example, the Incas, when attacked by the Spaniards, received no support from the other Native American tribes who had been subjugated by the Incas before the arrival of the Spaniards.

Coming to superior weapons, there are few things to note. When Islam spread into Central Asia, it spread via Persia. Chengiz Khan (1162-1227) hosted missionaries form many religions, including from Islam. The Mongols had already conquered large tracts of regions, from East Turkestan to Turkey, and parts of Russia and Ukraine. The Arabs were in no position to militarily overwhelm the Mongols. Yet, all these lands later on became Muslim.

Now, how did Persia become Muslim? The last pre-Islamic rule was the Sassanid Empire. According to Wikipedia:

According to Howard-Johnston, years of warfare had exhausted both the Byzantines and the Persians. The Sassanids were further weakened by economic decline, heavy taxation, religious unrest, rigid social stratification, the increasing power of the provincial landholders, and a rapid turnover of rulers, facilitating the Islamic conquest of Persia.

[LINK]

Someone suggested that Persians did not have caste system. Well, apparently, they did have religious unrest and social stratification. Economic factors also contributed.

Now, let's look at Afghanistan. When the Sassnid Empire fell, the Arabs chased the last ruler Yazdegerd III, and they followed a path in eastern Iran going into Afghanistan. The Arabs stationed a garrison at Herat. Was there any resistance to the Arabs? Not quite. So, how exactly did Islam spread in Afghanistan?

A large number of the inhabitants of northern Afghanistan accepted Islam through Umayyad missionary efforts, particularly under the reign of Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik and Umar ibn AbdulAziz.[5] In south, Abdur Rahman bin Samara introduced Islam to the natives of Zabulistan which was ruled by the Zunbils.[6]

During the reign of Al-Mu'tasim Islam was generally practiced amongst most inhabitants of the region and finally under Ya'qub-i Laith Saffari, Islam was by far, the predominant religion of Kabul along with other major cities of Afghanistan. The father of Abu Hanifa, Thabit bin Zuta, was a native from modern-day Afghanistan. He immigrated to Kufa (in Iraq), where Hanifa was born. Later, the Samanids propagated Sunni Islam deep into the heart of Central Asia, as the first complete translation of the Qur'an into Persian occurred in the 9th century. Since then, Islam has dominated the country's religious landscape.

[LINK]

So, you see, there is some truth in both the hypothesis, that (1) there was military capitulation coupled with lack of unified resistance, and (2) religious evangelism and propagation of faith.

_______________________

Question to be asked how was Step (B) made possible in regions where Pagans were majority? How are these converts who are supposed to be the minority so effective? Read ahead:

These organized religions having a central ruler (their god) and Synchronized Rituals (see how the crowd synchronizes itself during offering of Namaz) gradually program their followers into acting like a single entity even though they may be having internal conflicts. Just like soldiers who undergo behavioral programming during training (What do you think is the significance of those Marches on Drum beats?).

These organized groups act together and can defeat larger but disorganized groups.

In the previous section, I had already given you examples on how Islam spread. Yes, organized religions have synchronized rulers, and complete submission to the letter of the book. This leads to relatively easy military victories, but it also leads to the tendency to impose ones will on others. As a result, we have people in the Islamic world killing others after accusing the other of not being the right kind of Muslim. Everyone becomes the pallbearer of Islam and uses that as an excuse to start killing the other.

India was indeed disorganized. Well, it was disorganized even at the time of Alexander until Chandragupta came and brought in some order. So, the question is, how did Chandragupta achieve a massive Empire? First off, it was not purely by military, but by making clever alliances. Pure military victory on such a large and diverse country is not possible. Similarly, Islam, despite being organized, today has failed to unite the various Arab States, who often times, feud with each other.
_______________________

Question to be asked how was Step (B) made possible in regions where Pagans were majority? How are these converts who are supposed to be the minority so effective?

Allow me to repeat quote you.

If you look at the fall of Paganism in Europe and rise of Christianity, you will notice that when Christianity was on the rise in the Pagan Roman Empire, the Empire did all it could to suppress and eradicate this new faith that challenged status quo. The military superiority was obviously with the Roman Empire. Yet, all these attempts failed, and eventually, the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. [LINK] Do not forget that the Roman Empire was highly stratified.

So, again, military superiority alone does not always achieve conversion. Faith needs to succeed in controlling the mind. In India, faith was Hinduism (corrupted form of Vedic religion), and this did not command the respect of all adherents. Therefore, it was impossible for people to achieve religious unity and if an alternative that is more egalitarian were on the offer, the people lapped it up. This was the beginning. Forced conversions did happen, but it happened much later.
_______________________

Visiting temples or Pandaals during Durga Puja doesn't qualify as Synchronized Ritual, that is because actions of an individual devotee are not synchronized with the actions of the crowd.

This underlying strength of Islam was recognized by one of the great Indian leaders named named Bal Gangadhar Tilak who revived the Ganpati Celebrations.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a great patriot, and he also supported the Yugantar Party, which was known by its public name Anushilan Samity. Anyway, that is a different topic.

The point I am trying to make is, it is one thing for people to come together in Ganapati Celebrations, and it is another thing for Indians to coalesce together and fight against the invader in a unified fashion. The latter did not happen, neither in India, nor in Afghanistan. It did not even happen around 1857 or 1947. So, if we go back to Islamic invasion, you will see there was lack of unified action against the invaders, because, the very rulers who were supposed to fight against the invading armies, did not have popular support amongst the people, and extending into Afghanistan, it was largely voluntary self-proselytization.

As I have mentioned earlier, Buddha did not need to use force to attract followers. People were attracted to Guru Nanak, and did Guru Nanak use force? Not at all. Similarly, the same thing with the followers of Mahavira.
_______________________

Those who give up fighting are called Slaves. Afghans did not give up fighting just like local kingdoms did not give up the fight against the Islamic invaders, but such fights are of no consequence against a stronger, resolute and violent enemy.

Actually, if you read above, Afghans did not have to give up fighting during the last days of the Sassanid Empire. They simply did not fight. To give up fighting, you have to be fighting in the first place. They had no reason to fight because Islam's spread was predominantly evangelical, and not via the sword, contrary to what many believe.

Also, many people that converted, did so, because conversion gave them an opportunity to escape quasi-slavery, that is casteism.
_______________________

Had Indians (incl. Afghans etc) been the aggressors, Indic Religions would have spread to Arab than the other way around.

Yes, I partially agree. If India had won militarily, and if India offered a better culture and offered a better society to make Indian lifestyle attractive, then yes, Indic culture would have spread, just like Afghans love seeing India soap operas today. Pure military victory would not have allowed the spread of Indic culture or conversion, just like initial French victories over Russia did not change the latter from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
_______________________

Thanks for reading this long and windy post.