Warriors of Gujarat

[parijataka]

@civfanatic - whatever be the achievements, and these are many, the fact remains that they became vassals of the Arabs in a short time whereas Indian kingdoms in Gujarat or Rajasthan or Punjab gave stiff resistance repeatedly to every invader who tried to enter India.

 

[LurkerBaba]

@civfanatic - whatever be the achievements, and these are many, the fact remains that they became vassals of the Arabs in a short time whereas Indian kingdoms in Gujarat or Rajasthan or Punjab gave stiff resistance repeatedly to every invader who tried to enter India.

Iran had just emerged out of a devastating war with the Byzantine Empire.

Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the end of the conflict both sides had exhausted their human and material resources. Consequently, they were vulnerable to the sudden emergence of the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate, whose forces invaded both empires only a few years after the war. The Muslim forces swiftly conquered the entire Sasanian Empire and deprived the Byzantine Empire of its territories in the Levant, the Caucasus, Egypt, and North Africa. Over the following centuries, half the Byzantine Empire and the entire Sasanian Empire came under Muslim rule.

Also, many people don't understand here is that Iranians molded Islam in their image to suit their interests. Indians failed, Pakistan is proof of that fact.

 

[parijataka]

Iran had just emerged out of a devastating war with the Byzantine Empire.

Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also, many people don't understand here is that Iranians molded Islam in their image to suit their interests. Indians failed, Pakistan is proof of that fact.

What do you mean sir ? Capitulating to a faith brought in by conquerors is success ?

 

[TrueSpirit]

Iran had just emerged out of a devastating war with the Byzantine Empire.

Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Awwww Mighty Iran had an excuse now for becoming Arab slaves within no time & never reclaiming their honour.

Also, many people don't understand here is that Iranians molded Islam in their image to suit their interests. Indians failed, Pakistan is proof of that fact.

Not many but everyone save some delusional individuals know whether India is failed state or Iran is. It is for the world to judge & apparently, they have judged as India too judged them in the UN. The consensus is:

Too unreliable a country (fanatically maniac) to be trusted with nukes. Your trade (gas exports) which is your only significant export (apart from Hezbollah) would be curtailed. And you (Iranians) cannot do a sh*t about it.

All this while think-tanks over the world discuss: would India be the next superpower or not ? Should it be allowed to join P-5 at UN or not ?

Hope this helps.

 

[LurkerBaba]

What do you mean sir ? Capitulating to a faith brought in by conquerors is success ?

We need to be less emotional in our analysis.

Christianity is a foreign faith which wiped off the indigenous religions of Europe, some argue that Hinduism was brought by invading Aryan Tribes, Karl Marx was a German and not a Russian. Basically, the source of any ideology is irrelevant, what matters is the people who control it.

Iran is the thekedar of Shia Islam, they're not anyone's slaves. They use Islam to further their own interests. Think about it. A random mullah in Iran has more power over some Shias in Pakistan, Kashmir, UP than subcontinental muslims.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Iran had just emerged out of a devastating war with the Byzantine Empire.

Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Awwww Mighty Iran had an excuse now for becoming Arab slaves within no time & never reclaiming their honour.

Also, many people don't understand here is that Iranians molded Islam in their image to suit their interests. Indians failed, Pakistan is proof of that fact.

Not many but everyone save some delusional individuals know whether India is failed state or Iran is. It is for the world to judge & apparently, they have judged as India too judged them in the UN. The consensus is:

Too unreliable a country (fanatically maniac) to be trusted with nukes. Your trade (gas exports) which is your only significant export (apart from Hezbollah) would be curtailed. And you (Iranians) cannot do a sh*t about it.

All this while think-tanks over the world discuss: would India be the next superpower or not ? Should it be allowed to join P-5 at UN or not ?

Hope this helps.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Also, many people don't understand here is that Iranians molded Islam in their image to suit their interests. Indians failed, Pakistan is proof of that fact.

Yes, our ancestors should also have capitulated meekly like Persians, got converted & served the desert cult

We have failed....since we could not do so, as per your wish

Thank God spineless ones did not exist in erstwhile India & thank God people like you are fringe minority in free India.

 

[TrueSpirit]

We need to be less emotional in our analysis.

Yes, and abandon useless concepts like honour, self-respect & patriotism upon which modern nation-states are based.

some argue that Hinduism was brought by invading Aryan Tribes

Those some are getting increasingly isolated & exposed, as modern genetic research throws up conclusive evidence. Keep up with times.

Iran is the thekedar of Shia Islam, they're not anyone's slaves.

Exactly, like Pakis consider themselves to be thekedaar of Sunni Islam & see where these failed states stand in the comity of nations.

And this is what you aspire for India to become ? This is your idea of success ?

Indians failed

As per your absurd gyaan, India should model itself on these theocratic states where terrorist/extremists run the show. Well done

Now carry on this twisted logic of yours. You have got people interested by making a caricature of DFI Staff (which is otherwise expected to be seen, setting examples).

 

[TrueSpirit]

Basically, the source of any ideology is irrelevant, what matters is the people who control it.

Totally flawed assertion as far as "people of the book" are concerned. Try again.

A random mullah in Iran has more power over some Shias in Pakistan, Kashmir, UP than subcontinental muslims.

Yes, these random mullahs do exercise influence over illiterate/half-educated/suicidal fanatic individuals which are almost ubiquitous. So what ?

So, we become a nation run by extremist-maniac mullahs like Iran & Pakis ? Do you even realize you are defending failed states/terrorist nations, suggesting we were emotional fools in clinging to our culture of tolerance & you are advocating that India becomes like these pathetic fiascoes in the name of nation-state.

That is your version of realpolitik ?

Everything ok, huh ?????????....Get well soon.

 

[parijataka]

@LurkerBaba - I do not agree with your and @civfanatic type of thinking. Being open to new ideas and thinking, including religions does not mean subsuming one's identity.

 

[IshratJahansGhost]

Seriously you guys are crying praises of an international pariah that is soon to be bombed into oblivion like Iran? WTF is wrong with this country?

 

[civfanatic]

Sorry, but what happened between 664 CE to 1191 AD in India. Ignore that, huh.

1) Sindh was permanently lost to Arabs and was Islamized.
2) Persians (Saffarids) and Persianzied Turks overran Hindu kingdoms in Afghanistan and the NW frontier. These places were then Islamized.
3) Mahmud of Ghazni launched numerous invasions deep into North India (as far as Kanauj and Kalinjar), and established permanent Muslim rule in the Panjab. Beginning of the Islamization of the Panjab.
4) And to make things even more interesting (and funny), even South Indians were invading the North during this time, and plundering North Indian kingdoms. Rajendra Chola in the early 1000s sent his famous expedition into North India which reached the Ganga river.

The period you gave was actually the period of North India's decline as a center of power. The same place which once produced great empires like the Mauryas and Guptas, became a playground for everyone and their dog, including Arabs, Persians, Turks, and even South Indians.

By our twisted logic, since most of Af-stan falls in to Persian theater of influence (cultural), so Af-stan must be Persia, not Af-stan. Let me get you around the fact that Iran itself is an artificial entity drawn up by the West. It is a Persian super-state. Ghori was an Afghan.

Yes, most of what we call "Afghanistan" today was a part of Iran in the past. The term "Afghan" was a Persian term used to refer to Pashtuns, and Ghori clearly was not a Pashtun. His family name and titles are Persian and not Pashtun, and he is from a region where Persian (and not Pashto) is the predominant language.

This is a map showing the extent of Persian language, in light green. In the territory of modern Afghanistan, the southern and eastern regions are dominated by Pashtuns and Balochis, while western, central, and northeast Afghanistan is dominated by Persian speakers. North Afghanistan is dominated by Turks (Uzbeks).

Your first quality argument in this thread. Why it is so hard doing it more often ?

So you admit that you are wrong? Good. Soon you will be proved wrong on several more things.

Obviously they will despise. What else can they do. Arabs finished them off & turned them into Muslims. Arabs literally rap*d these minnows within no time & got them to convert. Iranians can only whine & rant. Iranians of today are carriers of the desert cult that had ra**d them 1300 years ago.

I already told you that Persians did not convert under Arab rule, but under the rule of indigenous Persian dynasties. Why is this so hard to understand?

Against whom ?.............. Iraq ?

Iraq was supported by both the Arab World and West.

Neither India nor Pakistan have fought a 8-year long total war, and have sustained the number of casualties that Iran sustained over the course of the war.

 

[civfanatic]

Last I checked, there was no nation-state by the name North India. Iran is.
Absurd logic, you forte.
Better luck next time.

I can do a comparison of Iran with the whole of India, but that would be unfair for India because of the vast population difference. Besides, this thread is full of whining North Indians, which is why I want to do a comparison between North Indian states and Iran. If a South Indian was whining about Iran, then I would compare South Indian states with Iran. But that's not the case here.

It would be better to compare Iran (pop. ~80 million) with a place like Bihar (pop. ~100 million) or Rajasthan (pop. ~70 million), than with the whole of India (pop. ~1.2 trillion).

Do you want to see the results? Surely, these stalwart, Hindu-Dharmic states will have better socioeconomic indices that backwards, mullah Iran?

Yes, World Bank released data, based on which nations formulate their development plans & enter into treaties/agreements is false, while your made-up data is credible. Another masterstroke.

My data is not made-up, and your graph is factually wrong. It has chosen to entirely exclude Iran for whatever reason.

As per the CIA World Factbook, Iran's GDP as per 2012 is $1.016 trillion.
Link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

BTW, only about 25% of Iran's GDP comes from oil and gas. Iran is considered semi-developed by the U.N. and is self-reliant in many industries.

What a retard. Check what happened to them in 11 years after Islamic conquest of Persia. Then check again, if there was a Islamic regime inside India after 11 years of Muslim attack.

How many Zoroastrians in Iran ? How many Hindu in India ?

You are fighting a lost battle. You have been exposed quite early.

Yes, what happened to them 11 years after the Islamic conquest of Persia? Please enlighten me.

And yes, there was an Islamic regime in India soon after the initial invasions.

Why does it matter how many Zoroastrians there are in Persia and how many Hindus in India? The Persians voluntarily chose to adopt a new religion, and they did not forsake their own language or culture while doing so. It was Persian culture, language, and civilization which spread into India during the medieval period, and not the other way around.

Yes, Sindh was India. Rest of Indian landmass/Indian people never existed Shows you perverted sense of geography

I understand that your intellectual faculties are very limited, but seriously, read what you yourself write. This is what you wrote:

Islam could not get a permanent footland in India till 1192. Nearly 500 years of successful resistance.

This statement is wrong, because Islam did get a permanent foothold in India in the 8th century itself, in the form of Sindh.

India hosts 1/6th of humanity. There are around 85% Hindus + indigenous religions in India. What % is Zoroastrian in Iran ?

Exactly. Because there are many times more Indians than Iranians, it is natural that new ideologies/beliefs would become predominant faster in Iran than in India (this was true even after the initial conversions of Iranians to Islam, when Iranians adopted Twelver Shi'ism en masse in later centuries).

However, you stated that Indians did not convert because of some great resistance of North Indians to Islam. If that's the case, why are there so many Muslims in North India? Why are Sindh, Kashmir, West Panjab, and East Bengal overwhelmingly Muslim?

 

[civfanatic]

@civfanatic only half of Iran is composed of persians, the other half are turkic azeris who have nothing to do with persians in any way. Iran is a fake country

It's more than half, and almost all Iranians speak Persian, regardless of their ethnic/tribal origins. Iran has a firm linguistic and cultural unity, rooted in history, which some other countries lack.

If Iran is a fake country, then India is not a country at all, but a union of different countries, each with their own linguistic and cultural identities.

Also, many people don't understand here is that Iranians molded Islam in their image to suit their interests. Indians failed, Pakistan is proof of that fact.

I think an important reason why they were able to do this, is because they preserved their original language. Unlike Mesopotamians, Syrians, Egyptians, etc., the Persians were never Arabized. They retained Persian linguistic traditions, and in fact, the Golden Age of Persian Literature occurred under the patronage of Muslim dynasties.

In the case of Pakistan, they discarded their original language (Panjabi) in favor of a language that was produced under the Mughals (Urdu) with heavy Persian and Turkish influence.

 

[LurkerBaba]

I'm not going to waste time changing well entrenched PoVs.

But just to clear things out. There is a difference in being that actual thekedar of something and a wannabe - Pakistan is a wannabe. America is the thekedar of Capitalism and protestant Christianity. USSR was the thekedar of Communism, the jholwallahs in WB/Kerala are wannabes. Similarly, Iran is the thekedar of Shia Islam.

civ's article has a good explanation of this concept
The Future of Indian Power: Hard vs. Soft

In the case of Pakistan, they discarded their original language (Panjabi) in favor of a language that was produced under the Mughals (Urdu) with heavy Persian and Turkish influence.

Forget Pakistan, what about the rest of the subcontinent ?. 'Indian Islam' holds no sway in the Muslim world

 

[Simple_Guy]

THE JHALA RAJPUTS OF GUJARAT​

The modern Surendranagar district of Gujarat corresponds to the old territory of Jhalavad : land of Jhala Rajputs, which comprised the states of Limbdi, Wadhawan, Dhrangadhra, and Wankaner, all ruled by the Jhalas. Originally Jhalavad was one united kingdom and rulers led the resistance against the Islamic invaders.

Jhala Rajputs assemble in Wankaner. photo from India Today​

Gujarat had been "conquered" by the invaders in 1299 but most of Gujarat continued in the hands of the local warriors, mainly in Saurashtra, and Muslim authority was confined to the eastern bits. Kutch remained an independent Rajput kingdom throughout the medieval period and no Muslim conqueror could ever set foot there.

The main reason that Somnath temple was rebuilt again and again by the Gujaratis was it's location in Saurashtra, far away from the Muslim rulers in Ahmedabad, whose path was blocked by the stout Rajputs, kathis, Mers and others who refused to submit. After more than a hundred years of resistance, Sultan Mahymud Begada became the first to capture Dwarka. The Rajputs died fighting and the body of Bhimraja, the ruler of Dwarka, was found and cut to pieces. In the usual display of Mohamadden barbarism each piece of this brave Rajput's body was hung in different parts of Ahmadabad city to terrorize the Hindus. But it had the opposite effect.

Waghoji Jhala​

Waghoji Jhala advanced with his army from Jhalavad and defeated the local Muslim forces. The Sultan sent his son Mirza Khalil Khan with a large army to counter the Jhala Rajputs. The two armies clashed near the village of Saidpur, six miles north of Dhrangadhra. After a furious battle the Rajputs were victorious and the surviving Muslims escaped and Mirza Khalil Khan appealed to his father for help. Begada advanced from Ahmedabad in 1486. Instead of getting trapped between the two Muslim armies, Waghoji took his stand at the fort of Kuwa, and destroyed all crops and greenery for miles around to starve the enemy out.

After several months the provisions in Kuwa ran short and Waghoji and his Rajputs were given the option of converting to Islam and saving their lives. But Waghoji boldly rejected that offer and chose to die fighting like a MAN and not convert like a coward. In the battle the Jhala Rajputs were fighting without any fear of death, and thus prevailed against the Muslims, but in all the dust and confusion the standard bearer of Waghoji fell down. The people in the fort took this as a sign of the death of Waghoji and performed jauhar, destroying all valuables and provisions, while the women and children attained martyrdom in the holy fire.

When Waghoji returned wounded but victorious and discovered the tragedy he resolved to join his family in death. Filled with rage the Jhala Rajputs again charged from the fort of Kuwa. The Muslims who had barely recovered from the earlier defeat could not hold their lines against the fury of this charge. But since all that was dear in life had already been lost to the Rajputs, they fought like animals without any plan, simply hunting out and slaughtering as many of the foreign invaders. Till they were each isolated and killed.

But in this sacrifice, where most of the Jhala clan was wiped out, Waghoji and his Rajputs saved Jhalavad and Saurashtra. Begada returned to Ahmadabad and could never return to colonize Jhalavad as he had to take on the Chauhan Rajputs of Champaner to the east of Gujarat. The Somanth temple was rebuilt and the Jhala Rajputs regained their territory but were weakened. And ultimately four smaller kingdoms of Limbdi, Wadhawan, Dhrangadhra, and Wankaner were formed.

One of the descendants of Waghoji migrated to Rajasthan and in his lineage was born the most famous Jhala Rajput in history. The warrior who saved the life of Maharana Pratap in the Battle of Haldighati.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Bari Sadri and Jhala Maan​

Waghoji's younger son Rajodharji heard of the disaster at Kuwa and migrated to Idar where he married the princess. The Rajputs of Idar were equally famous for their resistance to the Sultans of Gujarat. They were also part of the powerful Rajput empire in Rajasthan of the Maharanas of Mewar.

Two sons of Rajodharji, Ajja and Sajja, took up service under the Maharanas of Mewar receiving the estates of Bari Sadri and Delwara.

City palace of Barisadri from Barisadri.com​

Ajja Singh was given the title "Raj Rana" and fought with the Mewar forces in the Battle of Khanua against the invader Babur.

Ajja Singh's great-grandson was Raj Rana Bida Man Singh, popularly known as Jhala Maan, and he fought in the Battle of Haldighati. This was the first battle fought by the young Maharana Pratap, and when all hope was lost and the Hindupat Maharana was in danger of being surrounded, Jhala Maan wore the Crown and snatched the royal standard from Pratap, roaring out to the enemy to come and fight him.

With his sacrifice Jhala Maan saved the life of Maharana Pratap and did his bit in saving Mewar itself from foreign rule. Today Bari Sadri is as much a tourist destination as Haldghati, Chittor or Udaipur.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Jhalavad in Gujarat and Jhalawar in Rajasthan​

Another Jhala Rajput of Gujarat who made his name in Rajasthan was Zalim Singh Jhala. A collateral descendant of the Jhala rulers of Wadhwan, in Gujarat, Zalim Singh's ancestor, Bhavsinghji, left his home to seek adventure. His fourth son, Madho Singh, took employment under the Rajput rulers of Kotah, in Rajasthan, receiving lands which passed to his son Zalim Singh in the 18th century.

Zalim Singh rose to a high position in Kota. He also adopted the British methods of fighting using infantry and artillery and reduced dependence on riding horses to war. With his power Zalim Singh was able to save Kotah in all the fighting with neighbours, pindaris, and British. Eventually a separate kingdom was carved out for his descendants in the south of Kotah and it was named JHALAWAR.

Palace of Jhalawar in southeast Rajasthan from Heritage​

The Jhalawar princely state of Jhala Rajputs in Rajasthan was even larger than their original home, Jhalavad in Gujarat!

 

[civfanatic]

Forget Pakistan, what about the rest of the subcontinent ?. 'Indian Islam' holds no sway in the Muslim world

I think this is partially because the champions of Islam in the Indian subcontinent, historically speaking, have been foreigners, and most conversions took place under foreign Muslim dynasties. In Iran, on the other hand, the champions of Islam have largely been Persians themselves, or at least Persianized peoples who spoke Persian and associate with Persian culture, and most conversions took place under native Persian dynasties. As a result, there is no tendency for Persian Islam to associate itself with foreigners like Arabs or Turks, while the same is not true for Indian Islam. Historically, Indian Muslims were called "Turks", even though most Indian Muslims were/are not ethnically or linguistically Turkish. Even today, the Telugu word for 'Muslim' is thurka, i.e. 'Turk'.

However, I have observed an interesting trend, especially among ex-pat Iranians, of totally denouncing Islam (including Shi'a Islam) as "foreign" and "Arab". Most of these Iranians are not Zoroastrians but ultranationalistic atheists and agnostics. Many Iranians have become agnostics and atheists as a result of disillusionment with the theocratic regime. Instead of promoting religion, the theocracy has pushed many Iranians away from it. I think Iran might be on the brink of another revolution, unless the West does something stupid again.

 

[parijataka]

I think this is partially because the champions of Islam in the Indian subcontinent, historically speaking, have been foreigners, and most conversions took place under foreign Muslim dynasties. In Iran, on the other hand, the champions of Islam have largely been Persians themselves, or at least Persianized peoples who spoke Persian and associate with Persian culture, and most conversions took place under native Persian dynasties. As a result, there is no tendency for Persian Islam to associate itself with foreigners like Arabs or Turks, while the same is not true for Indian Islam. Historically, Indian Muslims were called "Turks", even though most Indian Muslims were/are not ethnically or linguistically Turkish. Even today, the Telugu word for 'Muslim' is thurka, i.e. 'Turk'.

However, I have observed an interesting trend, especially among ex-pat Iranians, of totally denouncing Islam (including Shi'a Islam) as "foreign" and "Arab". Most of these Iranians are not Zoroastrians but ultranationalistic atheists and agnostics. Many Iranians have become agnostics and atheists as a result of disillusionment with the theocratic regime. Instead of promoting religion, the theocracy has pushed many Iranians away from it. I think Iran might be on the brink of another revolution, unless the West does something stupid again.

Conversions among Persian populace first took place among craftsmen who were considered `impure` among Zoroastrians. Between 7th cent AD and 11 cent AD Iran became went 40% to 100% Muslim.

In my language also the word for Muslim is `turki`.

Agree with your observation on Iranians turning away from Islam - this is in US only perhaps ?