Was there local support for invaders?

[India22]

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

I will try to later give sources. But if you read Cook's book on Sikh wars you will find Muslim villagers helped British to escape from Sikh rule and welcomed them.

 

[Project Dharma]

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.

Sikhism is indeed an indic or a Dharmic religion. However, (to be fair) about the verses that you quoted:

1) Some of them are from the Sarbloh Granth, authorship of which is not known
2) Others are from the Dasam Granth which is not part of Guru Granth Sahib and is part of Guru Gobind Singh's form of Shaktism. This is not practiced by most Sikhs.
3) Many verses in the Guru Granth Sahib mention Hindu Gods and exalt them but do not talk about praying to them. You posted one link so I'll use that as an example:

The One Divine Mother conceived and gave birth to the three deities.
One, the Creator of the World; One, the Sustainer; and One, the Destroyer.
(But) He makes things happen according to the Pleasure of His Will. Such is His Celestial Order.

4) The flag you posted is of a Dogra Regiment in Ranjit Singh's Army

 

[Project Dharma]

I will try to later give sources. But if you read Cook's book on Sikh wars you will find Muslim villagers helped British to escape from Sikh rule and welcomed them.

I will check them out but most books by British authors of the Colonial era are full of fabricated facts to show Hindu/Sikh/Indian culture and religion as inferior to Abrahamic Muslim religion. I've yet to read a well written neutral source on the subject.

 

[pmaitra]

Ok I will reply point by point



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.

Pala Empire had several times more territory than the Sena Empire. At its zenith, it stretched from Kamakshya (Assam) to Kanauj (western UP). Most of it was acquired. Pala Empire did not start off that large.

There is something even bigger than the Pala Empire and that is the Mauryan Empire.

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/

Afghans are many tribes. One of them are the Pashtuns, They themselves have many further tribal divisions.

In any event, the point then is, that the Hindu Shahi of Afghanistan was not very successful in defending Afghanistan from Arab invaders. Do you agree?

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

I did not use the term "Mongol." I used the term "Turko-Mongol." I used that term because I was trying to refer to those regions of mixed Turkic and Mongol populations that had converted to Islam.

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

Hmmm, I fail to understand what you are implying. Screenshot:

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.

Sure, there will be lot in common due to common cultural roots. For example, so many Sikhs have the name Indra (Inder to be precise) in their names.

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.

Swami Vivekananada also said the same thing. He must be a Marxist historian then?

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.

Well, you are saying you are not supporting the Caste System, but at the same time saying it protected Hinduism. I am not sure what your position is, but don't let political correctness stifle your voice. If you support Caste system, you can present justification as to why it is good.

 

[India22]

That's all I want that Sikhism should be accepted as a Indian religion, evolved from Hinduism like Buddhism.

As I said to give here

https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sour...#q=Sikhs+blowing+up+Mosques+by+cannon&tbm=bks

Kashmiris were crying and moaning to express the pain in their wounds inflicted by Afghan terror when the Sikhs took over Kashmir. ... with which the Kashmiri Muslim was sentimentally attached were desecrated, including the Jama Masjid, Shahi Masjid and other mosques. ... Phola Singh sent a cannon to blow up the Khanquah-i-Moula; Pandit Birbal apprehended serious riots, so did not advise the ...

That's all I can find now.

 

[Project Dharma]

That's all I want that Sikhism should be accepted as a Indian religion, evolved from Hinduism like Buddhism.

Of course it is, it is obvious just from reading Mool Mantar.

That's all I can find now.

Sikhs brutalized Muslims, particularly in revenge for the martyrdom of Sikh Gurus and Guru Gobind Singh's family. However, they were not converted by force, just put to the sword.

 

[India22]

Here is another

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CWjLtfi-ssIC&pg=PA65&dq=Sikh+rule+in+Kashmir+mosques&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr2ITpm9fQAhULMY8KHc0VDnoQ6AEIGTAA#v=onepage&q=Sikh rule in Kashmir mosques&f=false

Pala Empire had several times more territory than the Sena Empire. At its zenith, it stretched from Kamakshya (Assam) to Kanauj (western UP).

There is something even bigger than the Pala Empire and that is the Mauryan Empire.

Yes, what does it suggest? Maurya Empire was builtup on framework of Nanda Empire. Maurya Empire is stage in Magadha polity.

Afghans are many tribes. One of them are the Pashtuns, They themselves have many further tribal divisions.

In any event, the point then is, that the Hindu Shahi of Afghanistan was not very successful in defending Afghanistan from Arab invaders. Do you agree?

No, Only Pushtuns were originally called Afghans. Tajiks, Turkomens were not. Hindu Shahis did protect from Arabs. They failed against Ghazni because Ghazni had better cavalry. Nevertheless they continued to fight.

I did not use the term "Mongol." I used the term "Turko-Mongol." I used that term because I was trying to refer to those regions of mixed Turkic and Mongol populations that had converted to Islam.

Turks were always present in Mongol army. Uighurs themselves are Turks.

Hmmm, I fail to understand what you are implying. Screenshot:

I was implying that Pushtun people being Indo-Iranians converted earlier and they then drove out Dardic speakers of NWFP. Which is why in NWFP Pashtun an Indo-Iranian language is prevalent now.

Sure, there will be lot in common due to common cultural roots. For example, so many Sikhs have the name Indra (Inder to be precise) in their names.

Sikhism was basically branch of Hinduism. It only emerged as distinct religion much later. I was talking about earlier stages of Sikhism.

Swami Vivekananada also said the same thing. He must be a Marxist historian then?

Because he is Swami Vivekananda you should not accept him always, do you know what he said about Islam and Christianity? He was not Marxist nevertheless you did not understand my argument. I said where caste system was most entrenched their conversion occurred little. Caste system is never two fold where higher caste oppress lower caste but many fold. In UP type area if I am a low caste ranking 5, then there are 4 other castes ranking ahead of my caste. In East Bengal, if I am a low caste then ahead of my caste I have only 1 high caste.

Well, you are saying you are not supporting the Caste System, but at the same time saying it protected Hinduism. I am not sure what your position is, but don't let political correctness stifle your voice. If you support Caste system, you can present justification as to why it is good.

I did not support caste system in present time, you can quote where I said this. But considering how more egalitarian areas fell quickly to, all I can say caste system created more problem for a convert. Since India has extensive caste system so often a convert would find caste system among his new society too.

For example look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_South_Asian_Muslims

People escape religion to escape from caste system, but if they find similar caste system is existing in new religion also will not it discourage people from converting? I never supported caste system anyway.

 

[Project Dharma]

Here is another

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CWjLtfi-ssIC&pg=PA65&dq=Sikh+rule+in+Kashmir+mosques&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr2ITpm9fQAhULMY8KHc0VDnoQ6AEIGTAA#v=onepage&q=Sikh rule in Kashmir mosques&f=false

Thanks, again this proves that Muslims were subjugated and prevented from practicing their religion and extorted by Sikhs but not converted. Sikhism by its nature is not well suited for conversions and partly depends on loyalty to the Guru based on shared cultural and racial heritage.

 

[pmaitra]

Here is another

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CWjLtfi-ssIC&pg=PA65&dq=Sikh+rule+in+Kashmir+mosques&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr2ITpm9fQAhULMY8KHc0VDnoQ6AEIGTAA#v=onepage&q=Sikh rule in Kashmir mosques&f=false



Yes, what does it suggest? Maurya Empire was builtup on framework of Nanda Empire. Maurya Empire is stage in Magadha polity.

Nanda Empire was again a fraction of the territorial expanse of the Mauryan Empire. I am not contending that Mauryan Empire was based on the foundation of the Nanda Empire. My point is different. What I am saying is Buddhist (and Jain too) Empires were not necessarily weak.

No, Only Pushtuns were originally called Afghans. Tajiks, Turkomens were not. Hindu Shahis did protect from Arabs. They failed against Ghazni because Ghazni had better cavalry. Nevertheless they continued to fight.

Fine. In any event, how come the Pashtuns today are almost completely Muslim yet they put up stiff resistance to the Soviets and later the Americans? You are avoiding answering my question and creating a deluge of facts, which albeit correct, do not answer my question.

Turks were always present in Mongol army. Uighurs themselves are Turks.

Ok, so answer my question. How come the Turko-Mongols never managed in Tibet what they managed in India?

I was implying that Pushtun people being Indo-Iranians converted earlier and they then drove out Dardic speakers of NWFP. Which is why in NWFP Pashtun an Indo-Iranian language is prevalent now.

So, answer my question then.

Sikhism was basically branch of Hinduism. It only emerged as distinct religion much later. I was talking about earlier stages of Sikhism.

Ok.

Because he is Swami Vivekananda you should not accept him always, do you know what he said about Islam and Christianity? He was not Marxist nevertheless you did not understand my argument. I said where caste system was most entrenched their conversion occurred little. Caste system is never two fold where higher caste oppress lower caste but many fold. In UP type area if I am a low caste ranking 5, then there are 4 other castes ranking ahead of my caste. In East Bengal, if I am a low caste then ahead of my caste I have only 1 high caste.

East Bengal has/had four castes. Did the book you referenced claim that East Bengal had two castes?

I did not support caste system in present time, you can quote where I said this.

Ok.

But considering how more egalitarian areas fell quickly to, all I can say caste system created more problem for a convert.

There is no evidence that egalitarian regions fell quickly. Tibet never converted to Islam the way a large part of India did. The Turko-Mongol invaders (those from the region of the Central Asian -stans) had more success in India than they did in Tibet.

Since India has extensive caste system so often a convert would find caste system among his new society too.

For example look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_South_Asian_Muslims

People escape religion to escape from caste system, but if they find similar caste system is existing in new religion also will not it discourage people from converting? I never supported caste system anyway.

Ok.

 

[Peter]

Ok I will reply point by point






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.

Europe did not have any caste system. There was a class system. In Latin America there was sort of a caste/stratification based on colour/descent(the caste word comes from the Portugese word Casta) but it was not very rigid.

 

[India22]

Nanda empire cant be considered a fraction. Another thing which should be remembered on this matter is by the time of Nanda empire, the Magadha area was civilizationally most advanced, they had most surplus production. It enabled Magadha to expand not other kingdoms. Further Alexander had destroyed tribal kingdoms in Punjab and divided it into 2 kingdoms largely and Greek Governors. The Mauryans therefore did not have to deal with every tribe. Much of India still was then jungle covered. Ashoka's inscriptions talk about protected people within empire in jungles. So because of this Mauryans faced much lesser resistance than Guptas by that time all of India had achieved civilizational parity.

Pushtuns fought against Soviets because some one was helping them. Soviets were not forcefully converting Pashtuns to Atheism. Different eras. Also you may tell me if Pashtuns were so powerful then how come Mauryan Empire, Persian Empires were able to rule Afghanistan? Pushtuns before Ahmed Shah Abdali never had strong kingdom. They were warriors.

Turko-Mongols never had much success in India either. It was the Turks who owing to superior cavalry could defeat Indian kingdoms. But against Tibet it was not so. Tibet had help from China and further Chinese themselves had access to good horses. Chinese had horse breeding grounds. I would say Chinese up to 18th century had most powerful empire. When Mongols attacked India during Delhi Sultanate, Turk soldiers defeated Mongols again and again. For Turkic people to invade Tibet they need Sinkiang, but Chinese had always strong presence in Sinkiang. Further Tibetans sometimes sided with Arabs. See Battle of Talas.

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

I was just suggesting a hypothesis about caste in East Bengal.

 

[India22]

Europe did not have any caste system. There was a class system. In Latin America there was sort of a caste/stratification based on colour/descent(the caste word comes from the Portugese word Casta) but it was not very rigid.

It was rigid. Aristocrats did not have marital relation with common people, there were Serfs, middle class family.

https://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/caste-system-in-europe/

 

[Peter]

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.

The entire Bengal region had been ruled by the Buddhist Pala Empire before the Sena Dynasty took over. The Palas ruled a large part of India,let alone West or East Bengal and most of the populace in Bengal had both Hindu and Buddhist beliefs. As for East and West Bengal, both had considerable Muslim population. However the British divided the two Bengals up based partly on Muslim majority and partly on geography. Murshidabad and Malda in our West Bengal had Muslim majorities but were given to India while other Hindu areas were given to East Pakistan. You do not seem to know about the division of Bengal and so you are making false assumptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murshidabad_district#Modern_era


India became independent on 15 August 1947, after being bifurcated into two nations, viz., India and Pakistan. Murshidabad, on the basis of the fact that Muslims were a majority, was part of (East) Pakistan for two days. Then it became part of India on the basis of the final award of the Radcliffe Commission.

 

[Peter]

It was rigid. Aristocrats did not have marital relation with common people, there were Serfs, middle class family.

https://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/caste-system-in-europe/

No it was not rigid. The present kings of England are all descended from the Franco-Norman Viking duke William the Conqueror.

William was a Bastard and the son of Robert,Duke of Normandy and the daughter of a tanner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror

William was born in 1027 or 1028 at Falaise, Normandy, most likely towards the end of 1028.[1][8][c] He was the only son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, son of Richard II, Duke of Normandy.[d] His mother, Herleva, was the daughter of Fulbert of Falaise; Fulbert may have been a tanner or embalmer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zp88wmn


Similarly Isaac Newton`s father was a farmer,albeit a prosperous one.

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

George Boole who is called the father of boolean logic and the man behind computers, was the son of a shoemaker.

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

 

[India22]

What do you mean Peter? Murshidabad was traded for Khulna.

Palas never ruled large part of India. Dharmapala had Chakrayudha as his ruler in Kannauj, other than a nominal suzerainty accepted by many kings of North India including Arab kingdom of Sindh after First Kannauj Triangle clash, Palas never ruled large part of India directly. Enough with this thread.

 

[Peter]

What do you mean Peter? Murshidabad was traded for Khulna.

Murshidabad and Malda was to be part of East Pakistan and they are in West Bengal. East Bengal had Hindu dominated areas that were lost due to the machinations of Jogendranath Mandal.
Also Khulna is in East Bengal and was Hindu dominated.

Palas never ruled large part of India. Dharmapala had Chakrayudha as his ruler in Kannauj, other than a nominal suzerainty accepted by many kings of North India including Arab kingdom of Sindh after First Kannauj Triangle clash, Palas never ruled large part of India directly. Enough with this thread.

I would ask you to read a decent history book. Palas ruled large part of India.

 

[pmaitra]

What do you mean Peter? Murshidabad was traded for Khulna.

Palas never ruled large part of India. Dharmapala had Chakrayudha as his ruler in Kannauj, other than a nominal suzerainty accepted by many kings of North India including Arab kingdom of Sindh after First Kannauj Triangle clash, Palas never ruled large part of India directly. Enough with this thread.

That's correct.

Emperor-Vassal relationship existed on many empires, including the British Empire. Chakrayudha was the vassal of Dharmapala, just like the Nizam of Hyderabad was the vassal of the British Crown.

Later, the Paramaras defeated the Palas and came up to Bihar.

Thereafter, the Palas allied with the Rashtrakutas and again regained Kanauj.

The Rashtrakutas had to go back to tend to their home.

The Sena Dynasty does not come anywhere close.

 

[India22]

Murshidabad and Malda was to be part of East Pakistan and they are in West Bengal. East Bengal had Hindu dominated areas that were lost due to the machinations of Jogendranath Mandal,



I would ask you to read a decent history book. Palas ruled large part of India.

Even Guptas did not control such amount of territory. Where did you get this map?

I would not disagree that European caste system was less rigid. However that is different story. The Printing Press revolutionized Europe but in India seldom any effort was made to save labour and complete work by machine. Even China was ahead of India.

 

[Peter]

Even Guptas did not control such amount of territory. Where did you get this map?

I would not disagree that European caste system was less rigid. However that is different story. The Printing Press revolutionized Europe but in India seldom any effort was made to save labour and complete work by machine. Even China was ahead of India.

http://empires.findthedata.com/l/183/Pala-Empire

 

[pmaitra]

Even Guptas did not control such amount of territory. Where did you get this map?

I would not disagree that European caste system was less rigid. However that is different story. The Printing Press revolutionized Europe but in India seldom any effort was made to save labour and complete work by machine. Even China was ahead of India.

I agree. This map is misleading and exaggerated.

Kambojas were allied with the Palas. They were not vassals. Rashtrakutas were also allies. However, Kanauj was most certainly a vassal.

Anyway, I think we are deviating from the purpose of this thread.

My point is simple:

Your argument is based on the following hypothesis:
Buddhist and/or Egalitarian = weak
Hindu and/or Caste-System = strong

(Yes, this is an oversimplification, and it is so by intent. The details are in the previous posts.)

Your hypothesis does not stand the test of scrutiny against historical events.

There are examples that support your hypothesis and there are examples that oppose your hypothesis.