Was there local support for invaders?

[anoop_mig25]

Some kind of local support is always there whenever an outside forces tries to Invaded a country/region

Now on point of conversion , The victorious Invading forces offered wealth and respect to section of Indian society which where earlier denied the same

IT is same as i am working in xyz company at lower level but expecting promotion during appraisal but denied , i would definitely switch to rival company which is offering me both wealth + promotion.

Between i donot get one thing Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhs all did not have caste system among them then why did those region which had Buddhist as state region get converted to Muslims

or this region have to got corrupted and had caste present among themself

 

[A chauhan]

Among Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, Buddhists were the most defenceless , fatherless and compromisable, even today Buddhists turned Dalits are rejecting the idea of nation and helping the foreign political forces.

So yes there was local help available , and that was Buddhism.

 

[Razor]

@pmaitra @DingDong :

What about Japan?? Stratified society, yes? But still nothing seems to affect them. Islam, xtianity etc all put together, still less than 3%.

Also what about KL, not many xtian, islamic (minus Tipu) military invasions, but 25-30% Muslim, 20%xtian?

Explanations??

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra @DingDong :

What about Japan?? Stratified society, yes? But still nothing seems to affect them. Islam, xtianity etc all put together, still less than 3%.

Also what about KL, not many xtian, islamic (minus Tipu) military invasions, but 25-30% Muslim, 20%xtian?

Explanations??

I don't have a lot of knowledge on Japanese society, so I am unable to analyse. Can you please share a link on this topic?

What is KL? Kerala?

Well, the Malabar coast has been involved in maritime trade with the Arab traders for a very long time. Then came the Portuguese. You are best equipped to comment on this, more than me.

 

[Razor]

I don't have a lot of knowledge on Japanese society, so I am unable to analyse. Can you please share a link on this topic?

What is KL? Kerala?

Well, the Malabar coast has been involved in maritime trade with the Arab traders for a very long time. Then came the Portuguese. You are best equipped to comment on this, more than me.

Both JPN & KL societies were stratified, but they responded differently to xtianity & Islam.
Yes, there has been trade b/w Malabar coast & ME for well over two millennia perhaps over three, but that might apply more for xtianity, as Islam starts around 7th century or something.
I guess trade played an important part too though, considering the Japanese were heavily influenced by the Chinese.
Anyway, I haven't analyzed the circumstances & reasons thoroughly so can't say a lot.

 

[Ancient Indian]

@pmaitra
You are exploiting the blanks in history to further your narrative.

Come on, caste issue is there. But it is not the only reason why people convert to other religion. Buddhism was a trend back then. Almost 90% of society was Buddhist.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra
You are exploiting the blanks in history to further your narrative.

I am not exploiting anything. I am simply trying to expose the fallacies that are being peddled without facts or historical references to back them up.

What are the blanks in history? Just because you might not have heard it from the sources you trust, does not mean it did not happen.

Come on, caste issue is there. But it is not the only reason why people convert to other religion. Buddhism was a trend back then. Almost 90% of society was Buddhist.

Never said it is the only reason for conversion. Yes, Buddhism was a trend back then, and what is your point? Do you think the Buddhists were always very peaceful? Do you think Jains were peaceful too?

 

[Ancient Indian]

I am not exploiting anything. I am simply trying to expose the fallacies that are being peddled without facts or historical references to back them up.

And you think you are exception from that. Different persons have different sources.
I think we should avoid this source related discussion. So many times we shared the so called references.

We don't have good recorded history to fall back to verify our claims. All because some scribe decided to twist the facts in retaliation to his opposite section of society.

Never said it is the only reason for conversion. Yes, Buddhism was a trend back then, and what is your point? Do you think the Buddhists were always very peaceful? Do you think Jains were peaceful too?

Buddhists are peaceful at its core.
I tried it. Knew that first hand. Even today, it is practiced as such.
Buddhism erased almost all of the old vedic rituals and life practices. Only core things survived in our Hindu lifestyle.

The problems started after the fall of Buddhism in India. The bitter feud b/w Brahmins and kshathriya again surfaced at that point of time. Common people were ignored and exploited. So they became weak.

That was why they never formed any significant resistance against the invaders. Our common people were weak and still weak. They can be easily brainwashed. It was result of centuries of neglect by the rulers.

 

[pmaitra]

I am being very serious.

There is going to be zero tolerance for name-calling, expletives, and trolling.

Counter the points. If you don't understand English, you shouldn't be in a discussion.

 

[pmaitra]

And you think you are exception from that. Different persons have different sources.

And some have no sources, only unsupported claims.

I think we should avoid this source related discussion. So many times we shared the so called references.

I prefer claims backed by sources. Otherwise, it is only claims.

We don't have good recorded history to fall back to verify our claims. All because some scribe decided to twist the facts in retaliation to his opposite section of society.

There is no conspiracy to twist anything.

Buddhists are peaceful at its core.
I tried it. Knew that first hand. Even today, it is practiced as such.
Buddhism erased almost all of the old vedic rituals and life practices. Only core things survived in our Hindu lifestyle.

Yes, Buddhists are peaceful at the core, but Buddhist Empires were not.

The problems started after the fall of Buddhism in India. The bitter feud b/w Brahmins and kshathriya again surfaced at that point of time. Common people were ignored and exploited. So they became weak.

You are correct, and I agree.

That was why they never formed any significant resistance against the invaders. Our common people were weak and still weak. They can be easily brainwashed. It was result of centuries of neglect by the rulers.

I don't think "they were weak" is a viable argument. You still did not answer my question. Do you think the same of Jains?

 

[Ancient Indian]

There is no conspiracy to twist anything.

There is this book about horse rituals. I forgot its name. It has all the names who had done that yaga.
King Janamejaya name is also there.
Funny thing is, no mention of yadistar(Dharmaraj) in it.

My point is, brahmins recorded history whenever they are paid good. Horse rituals and other yagas are big money events, mainly done to placate Brahmin class.

Based on these things, I smell some conspiracy there.

I don't think "they were weak" is a viable argument. You still did not answer my question. Do you think the same of Jains?

I don't know much about Jains.
I never met any Jain in real life. Amit sha is jain.

I know that Jain religion is there, way before buddhism. They have theerthankara who predates first known prophets in our religion.

There is this rumour that all of vaishna temples are once famous Jain temples. And number of their prophets are equal to avatars in maha bhagavata.

 

[pmaitra]

There is this book about horse rituals. I forgot its name. It has all the names who had done that yaga.
King Janamejaya name is also there.
Funny thing is, no mention of yadistar(Dharmaraj) in it.

My point is, brahmins recorded history whenever they are paid good. Horse rituals and other yagas are big money events, mainly done to placate Brahmin class.

Based on these things, I smell some conspiracy there.

I don't know much about Jains.
I never met any Jain in real life. Amit sha is jain.

I know that Jain religion is there, way before buddhism. They have theerthankara who predates first known prophets in our religion.

There is this rumour that all of vaishna temples are once famous Jain temples. And number of they prophets are equal to avatars in maha bhagavata.

During the Satya Yug, the Brahmans were true Brahmans. They were wise men. They were sincere in what they wrote. Not all Brahmans agreed. There was always scope for disagreement. The concept of Upanishad is for students to sit at the feet of their teachers and have a debate.

Of course, that changed over a period of time.

I am trying to make a clear distinction between Vedic religion and Hinduism/Barhmanism, etc..

Coming to Buddhism, many people consider Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu. Now, I am not saying it is true or false.

Our religion? You mean Hinduism? Hinduism does not have prophets, unless you want to correlate prohets with avatars.
____________
I think that both Buddist and Jains are capable of violence, even if at the core they are peaceful.
____________

Coming to local support for invaders, do you think locals refusing to come to the aid of their kings as a tacit support for invaders?

 

[Ancient Indian]

Our religion? You mean Hinduism? Hinduism does not have prophets, unless you want to correlate prohets with avatars.

Prophet and avatar are same.

I think that both Buddist and Jains are capable of violence, even if at the core they are peaceful.

Buddist people are not capable of violance. Buddhist means who is practicing Buddha way.
Not all people pursue spirituality.
But the mood of empire is very dependent on majority people' mood.

Some may be violent. But overall, they are most peace-loving people.

Coming to local support for invaders, do you think locals refusing to come to the aid of their kings as a tacit support for invaders?

The environment here helped the invaders.

Locals became sheep. Never given much priority in political matters. Always kept in ignorance. It does matter in battle scenario.

They didn't know how to face the problem as they were clueless about the situation.

They don't know how to support their king. Most of the rulers never cared for them at that time. The rulers were busy in playing game of thrones.

 

[pmaitra]

Prophet and avatar are same.

Ok, point taken.

Buddist people are not capable of violance. Buddhist means who is practicing Buddha way.
Not all people pursue spirituality.

Agree.

But the mood of empire is very dependent on majority people' mood.

Agree.

Some may be violent. But overall, they are most peace-loving people.

Agree.

The environment here helped the invaders.

Locals became sheep. Never given much priority in political matters. Always kept in ignorance. It does matter in battle scenario.

They didn't know how to face the problem as they were clueless about the situation.

Of course people were clueless.

Now, I am not sure what you imply by environment. You may not agree with everything I say, but at least, you agree (I hope) that there was lack of unity amongst Indian peoples and consequently Indians failed to put up a united front against invaders resulting in India falling to so many invasions.

 

[Ancient Indian]

Now, I am not sure what you imply by environment. You may not agree with everything I say, but at least, you agree (I hope) that there was lack of unity amongst Indian peoples and consequently Indians failed to put up a united front against invaders resulting in India falling to so many invasions.

North-west region had many kingdoms at the time. So much divided. They resisted invaders initially. But overestimated the morality of muslims. So got busted by them.

I kid you not, they had brahmin kings. How is that possible. There is no such thing as Bahmin king.

 

[pmaitra]

North-west region had many kingdoms at the time. So much divided. They resisted invaders initially. But overestimated the morality of muslims. So got busted by them.

I kid you not, they had brahmin kings. How is that possible. There is no such thing as Bahmin king.

Yes, they did have Brahmin kings, and Brahmins are not supposed to be kings. I don't know what you mean by morality of Muslims. Everything is fair in love and war. Indians were not ignorant of the use of deception in warfare. I could cite Chanakya, or even in the Mahabharata and Ramayana, there are plenty of examples of deception. Remember how Yudhishtir lied about Aswathama the Elephant? I could give you many examples.

 

[Ancient Indian]

Yes, they did have Brahmin kings, and Brahmins are not supposed to be kings. I don't know what you mean by morality of Muslims. Everything is fair in love and war. Indians were not ignorant of the use of deception in warfare. I could cite Chanakya, or even in the Mahabharata and Ramayana, there are plenty of examples of deception. Remember how Yudhishtir lied about Aswathama the Elephant? I could give you many examples.

I guess I can't counter that.
Our people were naive.

Do you know the story about Ghazni?
He tried 17 times and lost. How is that possible?

How come defeated guy can fight 17 times and win the last time?

 

[pmaitra]

I guess I can't counter that.
Our people were naive.

Do you know the story about Ghazni?
He tried 17 times and lost. How is that possible?

How come defeated guy can fight 17 times and win the last time?

You are correct. He lost many times. He also had victories. He made alliances with local Hindu kings, and sometimes, he had Hindu kings as vassals. He did not have a clean slate. Mohammad Ghori on the other hand was far more successful. If you look at the first conflict, Prithviraj Chauhan successfully defeated Ghori, but in the process, lost a valuable ally, Govind Tai. During the second conflict, however, Prithviraj wanted other Rajput kings to come to his assistance, For whatever reason, he could not get enough allies. He fought bravely, but there is only so much you can do.

 

[Ancient Indian]

You are correct. He lost many times. He also had victories. He made alliances with local Hindu kings, and sometimes, he had Hindu kings as vassals. He did not have a clean slate. Mohammad Ghori on the other hand was far more successful. If you look at the first conflict, Prithviraj Chauhan successfully defeated Ghori, but in the process, lost a valuable ally, Govind Tai. During the second conflict, however, Prithviraj wanted other Rajput kings to come to his assistance, For whatever reason, he could not get enough allies. He fought bravely, but there is only so much you can do.

He lost. But our kings were very kind to them. They gave money and gifts and sent them back.
Those muslim people regrouped again using the same money and waged war again against us. That is history whether you believe it or not. That is how it was possible for Ghajni to wage war 17 times.

When our kings lost finally, The muslim guys didn't show any kindness. They raged our temples and taken slaves.
See the differences b/w both sides.

 

[pmaitra]

He lost. But our kings were very kind to them. They gave money and gifts and sent them back.
Those muslim people regrouped again using the same money and waged war again against us. That is history whether you believe it or not. That is how it was possible for Ghajni to wage war 17 times.

When our kings lost finally, The muslim guys didn't show any kindness. They raged our temples and taken slaves.
See the differences b/w both sides.

Yes, I agree with what you said. As I mentioned earlier, for every invasion, there should have been punitive counter invasions. This happened a few times, but in most cases, it did not happen.

Coming to gifts, it was often given as tribute. As I said, in many cases, Ghazni had Hindu kings as his vassals.

So, now, let us go back to our original debate, about local support to invaders, and this does not necessarily have to be limited to Muslims invaders.