Was there local support for invaders?

[spikey360]

How has India grown?

I said poised to grow.
Why do you assume that Bharat will be peace loving forever? Only a few centuries ago, we were invading each others' states. Now we are united. In my opinion it is a matter of time till Bharatiyas feel the need to expand Lebensraum.

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

Gross oversimplification. Please note the humongous effort and loss of lives it took SU to reach Berlin from Stalingrad. Also note the kind of material support it had from Uncle Sam and Uncle Winston.

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

Most people follow the materialistic and ritualistic form today, yes. However, we are not 'stuck'. The fact that we are speaking of Sanatan Dharma even today is heartening. Perhaps if we can get our act together and practise it in its true form, there won't be a need for threads like these in the future.

 

[pmaitra]

I said poised to grow.
Why do you assume that Bharat will be peace loving forever? Only a few centuries ago, we were invading each others' states. Now we are united. In my opinion it is a matter of time till Bharatiyas feel the need to expand Lebensraum.

We shall see. I cannot predict the future. I agree. We are getting full.

Gross oversimplification. Please note the humongous effort and loss of lives it too SU to reach Berlin from Stalingrad. Also note the kind of material support it had from Uncle Sam and Uncle Winston.

Yes, of course, the USSR received help from the west. On the other hand, there are good arguments that even if there were no help, USSR should have still defeated Hitler, but would have taken longer. BTW, Hitler did receive a lot of help from the west too, because the west thought Hitler would invade USSR, but Hitler instead attacked France. That is a debate for a different thread.

Most people follow the materialistic and ritualistic form today, yes. However, we are not 'stuck'. The fact that we are speaking of Sanatan Dharma even today is heartening. Perhaps if we can get our act together and practise it in its true form, there won't be a need for threads like these in the future.

Yes, I agree. We need to practice it in true form.

 

[sasum]

Either people converted en-masse to escape from casteism.
orOur warriors were incapable of defending our country.

To my mind, it was both.......................

 

[mayfair]

To my mind, it was both.......................

And some more... as it has been amply demonstrated in posts above. It was a combination of factors:

1. Geography- Himalayas and the dense jungles of North East effectively prevented large jihadi lashkars from moving North and East, plus they were stopped enroute and suffered attrition and chose to settle down in plains rather than trudge along lofty mountain peaks.
Take the example of India. We are aware that many women in North India- primarily along the yamuna-gangetic belt, all the way till Bengal and below cover their heads in ghoonghat purdah system. This is evident in social gatherings, weddings etc. where the bride usually covers her head. Go south of Vindhyas and further South you go, the tendency to adorn a ghoonghat diminishes accordingly. This is especially evident in traditional ceremonies like weddings.

2. Local socio-political dynamics and the barbarity of the invaders- As pointed out, the invaders came to Bharat Varsha with two main motivations- loot and plunder the immeasurable wealth, the tales of which they had heard from travelling caravans and to local populace by sword. There was enough resentment present locally for them to find support and active endorsement. Of course that many supporters got their goose cooked eventually was not what they had planned for.

3. Content to be defensive instead of taking the war actively to the invaders- The defenders fought a defensive battle, they never took the battle to the enemy. The invaders were highly mobile kabilas, with few holdings. After every loss, they retreated, regrouped and attacked again and again. The defenders never bothered to finish them once and for all. They were either ill-advised or ill-equipped to pursue the retreating hordes.

Plenty of good discussion on this thread, members have good points, but the tendency to indulge in name calling is grating to say the least. Members should refrain from this

 

[sasum]

Content to be defensive instead of taking the war actively to the invaders- The defenders fought a defensive battle, they never took the battle to the enemy. The invaders were highly mobile kabilas, with few holdings. After every loss, they retreated, regrouped and attacked again and again. The defenders never bothered to finish them once and for all. They were either ill-advised or ill-equipped to pursue the retreating hordes.

I would say Muslim invaders had the advantage of mobility due to horses. Many battles were won from horse-backs. In the same way Europeans had the unfair advantage of small fire-arms. Why Hindus couldn't take the fight all the way to Arabia was their poor mobility.
About ghungat, it is outright un-hindu and a pick-up from islamic custom of wearing hijab. Have you ever seen hindu goddesses or Apsaras wearing ghungat in mythological paintings or temple-architecture?

 

[Sourav Kumar]

During the medieval period, for a long long time the canons worked wonders for the invader. According to my history text books, Babur won because he had canons and Ahammad Shah Abdali won because he had canons. I wonder why an invader turned resident indian could not hold onto his technologically advanced canons. Either history that I was taught in text books was wrong or the comfort of Indian plains made the resident Indians complacent all the time.

The real reason why invaders won was:
1) As other members have already pointed, the masses due to centuries of negligence by the ruling class could not care less
2) The kshatriyas played by old rules of their sport that was war. As other members pointed out, the invaders were given consolation prizes after each failed invasion. When I first read this in Swami Vivekananda's writing, I could not believe it.
3) Indian states were divided. The rulers did not have the farsight to unite and fight unitedly.
4) The comfort of Indian plains turned most warriors into philosophers and observers.

To stop future foreign invasions, Indian Govt should give 2 years mandatory martial training to 10% of eligible Indians in 21-24 age group. (Why 10%? Because 100% will be overkill! Even 5% will be good.) The guys who go through this training should be given special treatment in securing Govt Jobs once they complete their training. These guys should be given special treatment even in securing jobs in private sector. If implemented, this will change the core of Indian mindset with a domino effect that these guys will have on society. In case of social turmoil, civil war etc, we can depend on these guys to create local resistance and fight back.

We have enough doctors, lawyers,finance professionals and engineers already. They cannot shoot from guns. They can just earn money and do office politics.

 

[OtmShank'Srevenge]

I agree we've lasted a long time as a people, culture, religious ethos and as a civilizationial state and when we get a fair shake by the scientific community it'll Be accepted we are The longest continuously people there but we did not have to go through so much slaughter, violence, theft, or subjugation because of that.

the Japanese have a culture from antiquity but didn't need to invaded murdered and humiliated, neither did/do we

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

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/

haha very filmy! 'paida karke chhod dene waali Maa' v/s 'paalne-posne waali Maa'.
but yes, true.
ofc if the culprit and family are dissociated then its a different case; however like most other things, even this has some exceptions, like if he happens to be some big shot, then the effects/stigma of his ill-repute may have to be borne by his family & esp by the descendant for a part of his/her life. plus, may be some strong behavioral/psychological tendencies inherited by the descendant which an environmental conditioning may or may not be able to change (or change after long time), in which case, one gets to hear lines like, "tu uska ladka hai na, pata chal raha hai", or, "aakhir hai to usi ki aulaad na", where then birth becomes an indicator of being the son so physical dissociation would not necessarily mean karmic dissociation as well IMO.

 

[Ancient Indian]

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.

Most of the invasions are very unfortunate ones.
But we can't ignore our king's generosity.

 

[India22]

• Almost all of Afghans are Muslims.
• Almost all of Kashmiris are Muslims.
• Half of Punjabis are Muslims.
• Half of Kanaujis are Muslims.
• Two thirds of Bengalis are Muslims.
• Half of Malayalis are Muslims.

All of the above used to be Hindu at one point.

How did this happen?

Invaders? Conversion under the sword?

Golden military rule: Defenders have an advantage over the aggressors.

Either people converted en-masse to escape from casteism.

or​

Our warriors were incapable of defending our country.

Pick one of the two.

Instead of attacking the symptom, try to attack the root cause.

Wrong. It was not caste system. It was purely forced and related to entrenched Hinduism. Where where Hinduism was most weak, where tribal animism and Buddhism had dominated those areas fell most quickly. East Bengal was not so entrenched in Hindu caste system but West Bengal was. East Bengal fell rapidly. If caste system was main reason for conversion then UP which was most caste system based would see more conversion not tribal areas of NWFP.

Now as for local support, Indian states were decentralized. Read Burton Stein's Segmentary State model. Local people simply had no idea that what was the real cause of problem. Vijayanagar had suffered much yet Vijayanagar was secular. Since Hinduism had no concept of reconversion, Hindu's number continued to decrease and Hindu warriors were Crusader like. Spain and Portugal did Reconquista, Marathas, Rajputs and Jats did not. Only Sikhs were the one who paid in same manner the hostile population and later Dogras to some extent although Dogras did not convert.

 

[pmaitra]

Before you respond, please read all the posts in this thread.

Wrong.

That is your opinion.

It was not caste system.

It certainly was a major contributing factor. See my earlier posts.

It was purely forced and related to entrenched Hinduism.

It was not purely forced. You are completely discounting the Sufi movement.

Where where Hinduism was most weak, where tribal animism and Buddhism had dominated those areas fell most quickly. East Bengal was not so entrenched in Hindu caste system but West Bengal was. East Bengal fell rapidly.

Wrong. It was the regions entrenched with Hindu caste system that failed to defend against invading Muslim armies. On the other hand, the Pala Empire, which was Buddhist, controlled the region from Kamakshya to Kanauj. In other words, Bengal was strong under egalitarian Buddhist rule, but began to weaken with renaissance of Brahmanism. Perhaps this explains the old adage that united we stand and divided we fall?

I will add that Kharavela, who was Jain, had considerable successes against Indo-Greek warriors.

If caste system was main reason for conversion then UP which was most caste system based would see more conversion not tribal areas of NWFP.

UP today, even after large scale emigration of Muslims during partition, has a sizable Muslim population. NWFP is a frontier region. NWFP means North West Frontier Province. So, yes, one would expect more conversion there, be it via evangelism, or via force.

Now as for local support, Indian states were decentralized. Read Burton Stein's Segmentary State model. Local people simply had no idea that what was the real cause of problem. Vijayanagar had suffered much yet Vijayanagar was secular. Since Hinduism had no concept of reconversion, Hindu's number continued to decrease and Hindu warriors were Crusader like. Spain and Portugal did Reconquista, Marathas, Rajputs and Jats did not. Only Sikhs were the one who paid in same manner the hostile population and later Dogras to some extent although Dogras did not convert.

Hindu warriors were hardly Crusader like. Where do you get all these information from? Crusades were purely motivated by religion. Christians (keep it in context of Crusades) never allied with Muslims and vice-versa. This is not true in the case of India.

I will read about Burton Stein's Segmentary State model.

 

[India22]

Before you respond, please read all the posts in this thread.


That is your opinion.


It certainly was a major contributing factor. See my earlier posts.

May be it is mine, but it is correct. You can also read Richard Eaton's Rise of Islam : Bengal Frontier Book. It is from where I am drawing the conclusions. If you take caste system this way A poor caste Hindu converts to Islam, now his own caste abandons him and so does other castes. This is exactly what happened when Hindu entrenched areas saw conversion. But in more egalitarian areas where caste system was less entrenched there abandoning one because he left religion and caste was not so rigidly performed.

It was not purely forced. You are completely discounting the Sufi movement.

Sufi mOvement to a great extent has been exaggerated. Many of the Sufis themselves were warriors.
http://indiafacts.org/sinister-side-sufism/

For a start.

Wrong. It was the regions entrenched with Hindu caste system that failed to defend against invading Muslim armies. On the other hand, the Pala Empire, which was Buddhist, controlled the region from Kamakshya to Kanauj. In other words, Bengal was strong under egalitarian Buddhist rule, but began to weaken with renaissance of Brahmanism. Perhaps this explains the old adage that united we stand and divided we fall?

Completely wrong chronologically. Pala Empire did not face Muslims. Pala Empire was strong under Dharmopala and Devapala. After it because of lack of strong rulers it deteriorated. Central Asia was also Buddhist egalitarian see what happened there. Defeat in battlefield and Islamaization are different. Indian rulers were defeated because Indian state were decentralized, war technology not up to date and lack of religious zeal.

I will add that Kharavela, who was Jain, had considerable successes against Indo-Greek warriors.

Indo-Greeks and Muslims are totally different. I dont even know from where to start. Pusyamitra Shunga also defeated Indo-Greeks and he was a Brahmin.

UP today, even after large scale emigration of Muslims during partition, has a sizable Muslim population. NWFP is a frontier region. NWFP means North West Frontier Province. So, yes, one would expect more conversion there, be it via evangelism, or via force.

UP had seen lots of foreign Muslims settled. Overall conversion did not take place much. NWFP is different. There Indo-Aryan speaking Dardic people were original inhabitants and being Hindu they resisted Islamaization much more. But their neighbour Indo-Iranians being more egalitarian accepted Islam. I am talking about Pushtuns here. Pushtuns then forced Indo-Aryan speakers to leave NWFP. Still it shows caste less Pashtun people converted more early than us.

Hindu warriors were hardly Crusader like. Where do you get all these information from? Crusades were purely motivated by religion. Christians (keep it in context of Crusades) never allied with Muslims and vice-versa. This is not true in the case of India.

I will read about Burton Stein's Segmentary State model.

That is what I am saying. When Marathas overran a Muslim area they did not forcefully convert people, leaving the population to help Muslim army and fight for another day. Spanish and Portuguese did not. Hindus neither had religious unity nor any consciousness. Among Indian warriors only Sikhs forcefully converted.

I am not supporting caste system, caste system did actually protect Hinduism. History should based on truth. You are echoing what many Marxist historians say. Sindh was a Buddhist dominated state in 712 when Arabs invaded, in 1947 Hindus still were 30% and Buddhists were non-existent. China's Sinkiang was Buddhist, see now it is Muslim.

 

[Dreamhunter]

During the medieval period, for a long long time the canons worked wonders for the invader. According to my history text books, Babur won because he had canons and Ahammad Shah Abdali won because he had canons. I wonder why an invader turned resident indian could not hold onto his technologically advanced canons. Either history that I was taught in text books was wrong or the comfort of Indian plains made the resident Indians complacent all the time.

The real reason why invaders won was:
1) As other members have already pointed, the masses due to centuries of negligence by the ruling class could not care less
2) The kshatriyas played by old rules of their sport that was war. As other members pointed out, the invaders were given consolation prizes after each failed invasion. When I first read this in Swami Vivekananda's writing, I could not believe it.
3) Indian states were divided. The rulers did not have the farsight to unite and fight unitedly.
4) The comfort of Indian plains turned most warriors into philosophers and observers.

To stop future foreign invasions, Indian Govt should give 2 years mandatory martial training to 10% of eligible Indians in 21-24 age group. (Why 10%? Because 100% will be overkill! Even 5% will be good.) The guys who go through this training should be given special treatment in securing Govt Jobs once they complete their training. These guys should be given special treatment even in securing jobs in private sector. If implemented, this will change the core of Indian mindset with a domino effect that these guys will have on society. In case of social turmoil, civil war etc, we can depend on these guys to create local resistance and fight back.

We have enough doctors, lawyers,finance professionals and engineers already. They cannot shoot from guns. They can just earn money and do office politics.

Actually you are wrong. The south Indian Vijayanagar Empire was one of the first Empires to use cannons which helped them to destroy the Bahmani Sultanate and to defeat the Turkic invaders for more than 250 years.
The Marathas from the Deccan also used cannons and were able to destroy the Mughal Dynasty.
The main reason why northern India was easily conquered by the Turkic invaders is because the Rajputs were not able to unify and were not able to create a great Empire like the Vijayanagar Empire of south India and the Maratha Empire from the Deccan.

 

[Screambowl]

The attitude of this atithi devo bhava sounds good but only when this atithi has some well wishes for you . Not some Invader.

Secondly there is no rule in Hinduism that what should a Hindu follow. Hence no one follows anything. This is another problem Hindus are less united and more believe in nationhood. This is from day 1.

In 21st century, are our politicians who are Hindus less traitor? They know very well that Muslims would become trouble but then still they appease like some guest.

Same type of mentality prevailed 1000 years back. And India went into hands of invaders.

Look at Mamta Banerjee, she is getting aggressive against Modi who is a Hindu
Kejriwal getting aggressive against Modi who is a Hindu
Dig Vijay being Hindu wants modi out.

They cannot see a Hindu as leader, being themselves a Hindu.

This is the problem.

 

[Zulfiqar Khan]

I don't know why you guys think that people here were forced to convert to Islam. Almost every single village in Sindh and Punjab has a sufi shrine dedicated to the saint that converted them.

The Caliphates launched various and massive missionary efforts around the world.

People converted because during that time; Islam made much more sense and was logical compared to Hinduism. Sufi missionaries would disprove Hinduism relatively easily, just as they did with other Pagan religions.

In Fact it was Hinduism that was forced upon the modern-day region of Pakistan which was relatively Buddhist. Most weren't even fully Hindus; they combined aspects of Hinduism with their own local religions such as animism.

 

[India22]

In Fact it was Hinduism that was forced upon the modern-day region of Pakistan which was relatively Buddhist. Most weren't even fully Hindus; they combined aspects of Hinduism with their own local religions such as animism.

Hinduism was not forced. Before even Buddhism rose, the are which is now Pakistan(not to mention Pakistan did not exist then) through that area Aryans came. Traces of Saraswati River has been found. Pakistani Punjab was a seat of Vedic Hinduism, Sindh had Hinduism too. NWFP was inhabited by Dardic speaking Aryan people and they followed Hinduism.

Hiuen Tsang writes that Buddhism was seeing decline in Western India. Either way Buddhism is a Dharmic religion when Islam is a semitic religion. Buddhism is just an off shoot of Hinduism, so I dont get why Pakis and Bangladeshis say Buddhism they had. Dont forget Bakhtier Khilji destroyed countless Buddhist monasteries.

The entire area of present Pakistan was mentioned in Mahabharata, from which we know people of that area followed Hinduism, had IA names instead of Arabic names.

One major defect of Hinduism then and now is, people dont know what Hinduism is. For Muslims reading Quran is mandatory in Mosque but for Hindus not. A Muslim can quote his favourite verses from Quran, but since scripture reading is not much part of Hinduism so average Hindu even now has no idea what HInduism really is about, what Gita verses say. That's why they are easier to be converted.

The area of Pakistan was fully part of Indic civilization, they are not now, whether they followed Hinduism or Buddhism. Period.

 

[pmaitra]

May be it is mine, but it is correct. You can also read Richard Eaton's Rise of Islam : Bengal Frontier Book. It is from where I am drawing the conclusions. If you take caste system this way A poor caste Hindu converts to Islam, now his own caste abandons him and so does other castes. This is exactly what happened when Hindu entrenched areas saw conversion. But in more egalitarian areas where caste system was less entrenched there abandoning one because he left religion and caste was not so rigidly performed.

Ok, good to see another perspective.

Sufi mOvement to a great extent has been exaggerated. Many of the Sufis themselves were warriors.
http://indiafacts.org/sinister-side-sufism/

For a start.

Saw the link. Sure, many Sufis were warriors, but not all. The spread of Sufism was predominantly via evangelism.

Completely wrong chronologically. Pala Empire did not face Muslims. Pala Empire was strong under Dharmopala and Devapala. After it because of lack of strong rulers it deteriorated. Central Asia was also Buddhist egalitarian see what happened there. Defeat in battlefield and Islamaization are different. Indian rulers were defeated because Indian state were decentralized, war technology not up to date and lack of religious zeal.

Not wrong at all and I never claimed Palas faced Muslims, but they faced the same adversaries as did the Senas. How come Buddist Palas were more successful than Hindu Senas? [*]

Obviously, you did not read my previous comments. How come the Afghans did not resist the advancing Arabs but resisted the Soviets and later the Americans with vigour? [*]

Indo-Greeks and Muslims are totally different. I dont even know from where to start. Pusyamitra Shunga also defeated Indo-Greeks and he was a Brahmin.

My point is to counter any potential assumption that being Buddhist makes one weak. Nothing could be further from the truth. How come the Turko-Mongols invaded all the way into India and Persia but never made much headway into Tibet? [*]

UP had seen lots of foreign Muslims settled. Overall conversion did not take place much. NWFP is different. There Indo-Aryan speaking Dardic people were original inhabitants and being Hindu they resisted Islamaization much more. But their neighbour Indo-Iranians being more egalitarian accepted Islam. I am talking about Pushtuns here.

Denial of voluntary conversion leads us to only one conclusion then, that the people were simply defeated and subjugated and forcefully converted. I don't think that is exclusively true.

I do not deny forceful conversion, but I certainly believe a lot of the conversion was voluntary.

Pushtuns then forced Indo-Aryan speakers to leave NWFP. Still it shows caste less Pashtun people converted more early than us.

Pashtuns are themselves Indo-Iranian.

That is what I am saying. When Marathas overran a Muslim area they did not forcefully convert people, leaving the population to help Muslim army and fight for another day. Spanish and Portuguese did not. Hindus neither had religious unity nor any consciousness. Among Indian warriors only Sikhs forcefully converted.

From what I have read, the Sikhs gave some of the toughest challenges to the Mughals, yet, these very Sikhs left Hinduism and became disciples of Guru Nanak, not by force, but by their own volition. How come? [*]

I am not supporting caste system, caste system did actually protect Hinduism. History should based on truth. You are echoing what many Marxist historians say. Sindh was a Buddhist dominated state in 712 when Arabs invaded, in 1947 Hindus still were 30% and Buddhists were non-existent. China's Sinkiang was Buddhist, see now it is Muslim.

Caste system did not protect Hinduism. Caste system is one of the few glaring examples of the corruption that destroyed our Vedic religion. To defend Caste system as something that protected Hinduism is naïve.

What is a Marxist Historian and what has my comment got to do with it? Karl Marx has nothing to do with religious conversion. Most of these events happened long before Karl Marx was born.

What I say is what I find logical. I do sense an attempt to re-manufacture Indian history to suit a particular narrative, when evidence indicates otherwise. Many historians choose to take an objective view of events. Calling them "Marxist" is merely a strawman argument and a non-sequitur.
____________________

Ok, so let us agree to disagree on the several points where we do disagree.

Let me say, just for the sake of argument, that Caste System protected Hinduism - as you claim. So, that means we do not need to rectify anything related to Casteism, as it is a "good" thing. Is that the conclusion we need to draw?

P.S.: Counter questions highlighted with [*].

 

[Project Dharma]

Among Indian warriors only Sikhs forcefully converted.

Source? Sikhs do not believe in conversions, let alone forceful conversions.

 

[India22]

Ok I will reply point by point

Not wrong at all and I never claimed Palas faced Muslims, but they faced the same adversaries as did the Senas. How come Buddist Palas were more successful than Hindu Senas? [*]

Pala Empire had more territories. When Pala Empire's first ruler Gopala was elected then India had some political vacuum after death of Harshavardhana. Pala had large part of Bihar under their rule. Senads faced different situation. Sena Empire was basically limited with Bengal and at some time Pala Empire and Sena Empire coexisted. Further we dont know much details about wars of Sena Dynasty. Lakshman Sen himself was a great warrior. Even Muslim travelers too wrote high of Lakshmana Sen. Further Sena Dynasty did not completely end with Khilji's Raid. Lakshmana Sen's ancestors continued to rule East Bengal and repel Muslim assaults.

Obviously, you did not read my previous comments. How come the Afghans did not resist the advancing Arabs but resisted the Soviets and later the Americans with vigour? [*]

The term Afghan actually point out a single tribe, Pashtuns. Pashtuns followed animism and therefore they converted earlier. Arab Imperialism did not only advance by sword but also through conversion. Once converted Pashtuns themselves became warriors. Nevertheless Hindu Shahi Dynasty of Kabul did repel multiple Arab attacks.

http://www.ariseindiaforum.org/tribute-unsung-heroes-shahi-rulers-kabul/

My point is to counter any potential assumption that being Buddhist makes one weak. Nothing could be further from the truth. How come the Turko-Mongols invaded all the way into India and Persia but never made much headway into Tibet? [*]

That is wrong, Mongols invaded Tibet. Qing dynasty originally went to Tibet to protect them from Mongols.

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

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

Pashtuns are themselves Indo-Iranian.

Yes that's why they converted earlier than Indo-Aryans.

From what I have read, the Sikhs gave some of the toughest challenges to the Mughals, yet, these very Sikhs left Hinduism and became disciples of Guru Nanak, not by force, but by their own volition. How come? [*]

Sikhs were fully part of Hinduism. Sikh Gurugrantha Sahib has verses to Durga, Khalsa Flags had Durga and Hindu Gods. Also I am seeing this from perspective of Indic Civilization. Sikhism is Indic religion.

http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/567/567_hew_mcleod.htm

http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/sikh_menu.html

http://searchgurbani.com/dasam_granth/page/493

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&fb=0&Param=7

Khalsa Sikh flag with Goddess Durga.

What is a Marxist Historian and what has my comment got to do with it? Karl Marx has nothing to do with religious conversion. Most of these events happened long before Karl Marx was born.

It is the Marxist Historians who claim conversion happened because of Caste system. I am not supporting caste system and never said it should be kept alive today. But judging history with present perspective is wrong. Other countries too had caste system including medieval Europe.

 

[pmaitra]

Source? Sikhs do not believe in conversions, let alone forceful conversions.

I think what he meant was that Sikhs were forcefully converted into Islam by Muslims, although, I might as well let him clarify that.