India, With or Without British Empire??

[Ray]

Aashraf is an Arabic plural noun, those who are sharif, 'eminent or exalted'. In nineteenth century British India, this became a category of censuses and ethnographic descriptions referring to a fixed, 'caste'-like set meant to encompass higher status patrilineal groups of Muslims, comparable to Hindu twice-born varna and the emerging concept of 'Aryan', Indians whose higher status could be attributed to 'foreign' ancestry, often in the distant past.

British social surveys purported to locate and count the 'ashraf' and attribute to them a range of stereotypic characteristics. During the same period, however, the usage of the adjective sharif and the alternative plural noun shurafa took on an increasingly flexible usage of genteel respectability that referred at least as much to comportment and literary education as to descent and frequently applied to non-Muslims as well as Muslims. As an indication of status attributions, both words, ashraf and sharif, were matters of controversy and negotiation, as in marriage arrangements, legal jurisdiction, or access to government patronage.

In India, Iran and Central Asia, however, the word sharif extended to wider categories of respectability; descendants of the Prophet were called sayyid.

It was probably not until the nineteenth century that the distinction between high status Muslims and those of lower status emerged into a formal system of classification supposedly based on whether a group could claim ancestry outside India.

http://www.soas.ac.uk/southasianstudies/keywords/file24799.pdf

Civfanatic,

Please give all a break.

It is no use befooling the people.

We are educated these days and can see through the bogus contentions pandered!

 

[Galaxy]

But they are united against Kuffrs something Hinduism was unable to do

Hindus were successful.

800 years of Islamic invasion, but failed to convert India into Islamic state. Only 20% population converted that also mainly OBC + Rajputs, Jats.

Now, Population is 33% because of High Total fertility rate.

They were fully successful in countries like Egypt, Persia in few years only.

Today, Culture of India is based on Hinduism which proves that Hinduism didn't not failed.

Yes, we lost huge land and population which is unforgettable pain. But I don't think, Hinduism would have survived after thousand years of Invasion if people were not resilient.

 

[Ray]

I am not going to bite the bait civfantatic is casting.

I am too big a fish for him to land.

He might have his line cast ruined!

 

[Iamanidiot]

They were successful.

800 years of Islamic invasion, but failed to convert India into Islamic state. Only 20% population converted that also mainly OBC + Rajputs, Jats.

Now, Population is 33% because of High Total fertility rate.

They were fully successful in countries like Egypt, Persia in few years only.

Today, Culture of India is based on Hinduism which proves that Hinduism didn't not failed.

Yes, we lost huge land and population which is unforgettable pain. But I don't think, Hinduism would have survived after thousand years of Invasion if people were not resilient.

Pakistan,Afghanistan and Bangladesh were also part of India previous that you conveniently forget.Present day India is badly truncated and injured form thanks to Brahmins and their divisive ideology

 

[civfanatic]

Civfanatic,

Please give all a break.

It is no use befooling the people.

We are educated these days and can see through the bogus contentions pandered!

Your response to my assertion was to quote ReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World (God knows what that is). My information is based on numerous scholarly articles and history texts that I have read over the years; try Africa to 1875: A Modern History by University of Michigan Press for the information on Islamic Egypt.

No one is befooling anyone. With all due respect I think this 'discussion' no longer has any use behind it. As you say, people are educated now.

 

[civfanatic]

They were fully successful in countries like Egypt, Persia in few years only.

This is so false it is not even funny.

I truly despise the distortion of history to suit one's agenda. Why don't you actually read a history of Egypt or Persia.

 

[Iamanidiot]

@Brigadier Civics version of history is very very accurate contest as much as you want but that doesn't change history

 

[Galaxy]

Pakistan,Afghanistan abd Bangladesh were also part of India previous that you conveniently forget.Present day India is badly truncated and injured form thanks to Brahmins and their divisive ideology

Well, I said......we lost huge chunk of land and population % wise. It's unforgettable pain. But we can't change the history. Unfortunately, We have to live with that for rest of our life.

On satisfactory note, I am still living in place which was ruled by Mughals Sulatants for few hundred years. Those who converted don't have significant power.

Bangladesh - Slum Desh, Coming to India as Maid, Rickshaw Driver.
Pakistan - Failed Nation, Terrorist Nation.
A'than - Taliban state.

In Asia, Only India matters after China. Although, I agree with you, That it's sad to know that we lost few countries. But it's mainly because we didn't had UNITY.

Brahmanic part - Well, you need to think logically with open mind. I am no supporter for their ideology. Indeed, I didn't like few of their ideology. But it would be wrong to blame them for all misfortune. Many religious reform were also started by them to protect the Dharmic religion in last 2,000 years.

 

[civfanatic]

The biggest losers during the medieval Turkic invasions of India were the Buddhists, who were ironically also India's greatest hope against Brahmanism. The fall of Buddhism was a true tragedy.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Well, I said......we lost huge chunk of land and population % wise. It's unforgettable pain. But we can't change the history. Unfortunately, We have to live with that for rest of our life.

Victors never lose land only loser's lose

On satisfactory note, I am still living in place which was ruled by Mughals Sulatants for few hundred years. Those who converted don't have significant power.

Bangladesh - Slum Desh, Coming to India as Maid, Rickshaw Driver.
Pakistan - Failed Nation, Terrorist Nation.
A'than - Taliban state.

Two seemingly contradictory statements the converted are a good enough pain in the ass as said by you

In Asia, Only India matters after China. Although, I agree with you, That it's sad to know that we lost few countries. But it's mainly because we didn't had UNITY.

Meh!!!Iam a patriot but not a jingo to buy that crap

Brahmanic part - Well, you need to think logically with open mind. I am no supporter for their ideology. Indeed, I didn't like few of their ideology. But it would be wrong to blame them for all misfortune. Many religious reform were also started by them to protect the Dharmic religion in last 2,000 years.

Iam bang on target on the Brahmanic part.They and their lust for power and their ideology is the main scourge of Indian civilization the source of all ills.Most religious reform was started by Shudras,dalits and Banias the brahmins collective contribution to the Indian society is infliction of misery to the Indian masses throughout the ages

 

[Galaxy]

It's good that Buddhism didn't spread all over India population wise. They were peaceful people and failed to protect their own religious places. They lost in A'than with no resilient.

If India majority population would be Buddhist in medieval period, Whole undivided India would have become Islamic state with 98% Muslims. Decline of Buddhism in pre-Islamic invasion phase helped India to retain Dharmic faith in post Islamic-era.

 

[Ray]

Your response to my assertion was to quote ReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World (God knows what that is). My information is based on numerous scholarly articles and history texts that I have read over the years; try Africa to 1875: A Modern History by University of Michigan Press for the information on Islamic Egypt.

No one is befooling anyone. With all due respect I think this 'discussion' no longer has any use behind it. As you say, people are educated now.

You really want people to believe that?

Wich religion says it is not a religion of peace and then trot out great philosophies?

What is important is the proof of the pudding.

The proof of the pudding is what are the activities as recorded in history.

Compare the historical event of all religions and you will know the real truth.

No comments on what the Quaran and Hadith says about Converting that I appended?

Peaceful, right?

No caste or differential in Islam, right?

Tell that to the Marines!

That this discussion (if it is the one on the Maratha and Mughals) will be iinfructuous I already cautioned.

Forgive me for not remembering since I have to flit from thread to thread to check all is well and there are so many of such going down the same way that one loses count!

 

[civfanatic]

It's good that Buddhism didn't spread all over India in population wise. They were peaceful people and failed to protect their own religious places.

If India majority population would be Buddhist in medieval period, Whole undivided India would have become Islamic state with 98% Muslims. Decline of Buddhism helped India to retain Dharmic faith.

Now that's funny, when India was ruled by Buddhist dynasties (Mauryas, Satavahanas, Palas) it was safe from foreign invasions. Looking at history it was your brahmins who failed to protect India, thanks to their divisive politics.

 

[Iamanidiot]

It's good that Buddhism didn't spread all over India population wise. They were peaceful people and failed to protect their own religious places. They lost in A'than with no resilient.

If India majority population would be Buddhist in medieval period, Whole undivided India would have become Islamic state with 98% Muslims. Decline of Buddhism in pre-Islamic invasion phase helped India to retain Dharmic faith in post Islamic-era.

Classic case of Brahamanical bigotry and blindness as a ding bat.Chandragupta Maurya,Satavahanas,Harshavardhana all were Buddhist

Sorry Ashoka was buddhist and Chandragupta was jain

 

[civfanatic]

You really want people to believe that?

Why religion says it is not a religion of peace and then trot out great philosophies?

What is important is the proof of the pudding.

The proof of the pudding is what are the activities as recorded in history.

Go read my Post #111, I laid it out for you as best as I could.

There are lots of misconceptions about history and I feel it is my duty as a student of history to correct them. After all, history is not meant to glorify oneself or demonize others but to understand why the world is the way it is.

 

[Galaxy]

Now that's funny, when India was ruled by Buddhist dynasties (Mauryas, Satavahanas, Palas) it was safe from foreign invasions. Looking at history it was your brahmins who failed to protect India, thanks to their divisive politics.

LOL. Islam started in 6th century only. There was no such threat to religion pre-7th century.

Buddhist were not Warriors across the globe.

Even Tibetans were warriors before they adopted Buddhism. Read history.

 

[Iamanidiot]

LOL. Islam started in 6th century only. There was no such threat to religion pre-7th century.

Buddhist were not Warriors across the globe.

Even Tibetans were warriors before they adopted Buddhism. Read history.

Mongols were buddhist

 

[civfanatic]

Islam started in 6th century. There was no such threat to religion pre-7th century.

India was invaded by peoples from West long before Islam. Mauryas defended India from Greeks, Satavahanas defended India from Sakas, Harshavardhan and Palas defended India from Hunas. All were Buddhist.

 

[Galaxy]

Mongols were buddhist

No, they were not.

They were follower of Tengriism. (Shamanism)

 

[Ray]

The biggest losers during the medieval Turkic invasions of India were the Buddhists, who were ironically also India's greatest hope against Brahmanism. The fall of Buddhism was a true tragedy.

Why so?

Life is a constant churn.