Our Turkic Connection

Re: # 95

``We find in the history of India, king after king came into power by Brahmin help``


``In the Deccan the Buddhist Kings were superseded by a Rajput dynasty, the Chalukyas, who were protagonists of Brahmanism. The fourth king of this line Pulkesi I destroyed the monastery at Amaravati and abolished Buddhism in those parts. He performed Ashwamedha Yajna and other sacrifices; grants of lands were made to the brahmanas; temples were built; worship of Siva in the terrible form of Kapaleswara was made popular.`` [p. 115, Menace of Hindu Imperialism]



````They already had acquired legal and religious right to kill the unwanted king through codification by Manu.``


``One of the first signs of Brahmanical revival, as in the past, was the promulgation of new Shastras, Puranas and other religious literature alleged to be the works of ancient sages. The priests must have been conscious of the untenability of their doctrines and their own unworthiness to lay down rules for the good of society, for they wrote new works in the name of ancient authors and altered ancient works to suit their present contentions. There is hardly any Sanskrit composition which has not been tampered with, altered or added to by them. There is no famous Rishi or teacher in whose name they have not concocted scriptures. There is no sacred book into which fiction and legend and imaginary history have not been interpolated. The most ancient of scriptures, the Rig-Veda, has not escaped the profane hand of interpolators and its tenth book is wholly ascribed to gods as if to conceal their true origin and later authorship. Veracity as to facts was never a feature of Brahman authors, so much so that historical unreliability has become a universal literary characteristics of the Sanskrit language. The best critic would be unable to separate the grain from the chaff, to say where facts end and fiction begins. This is even more the case in regard to the so-called sacred literature. The period of brahmanical revival naturally abounds in such fraudulent Shastras and Puranas.`` [Dharma Teertha, p. 124 ff.] ``

````Explaining how Brahmins frequently used Indian usurpers and even foreign invaders as an instrument of enforcement of Brahmanism over masses,``


``Raja Jaichand of Kanouj is said to have invited Shahabuddin to attack Prithvi Raj of Delhi. [Lala Sundar Dass, ``Decline and fall of Hindu Empire``, p. 25]``

aquaris:

``would you like me to quote from Dr Ambredkar in this regard.... ``

Please do quote Dr. Ambedkar, not a website that calls itself ambedkar.org

Re: # 92 Romair

can i know what is the source of your information?


``Punjab is one of the most invaded areas of the world. It has rarely been ruled by Punjabis. Following is one record of a Hindu family invading it and occupying it. ``

During Alexanders invasion, jhelum/surrounding areas were ruled by Poru and Ambhi et al. Wouldn`t they be forefathers of the present punjabis? didn`t they belong to the sanata dharma (what is called hinduism now)? so how can you say that hindus from the east invaded punjabis (with no religion, definitely not hindusim, according to you)?

``Chandragupta, who belonged to the caste of warriors (kshatriya), ``

he belong to a ``lower caste`` he wasn`t a kshatriya at birth. He was a Maurya, belonging to the caste of people who tend peacocks (mour). Even today the Mauryas are classified as OBC`s (?)

Even before Chanakya nurtured Chandragupt, he had pleaded with the Patliputra (Magadha) princes, which at that time was the largest/strongest kingdom, to help ``punjabi`` king Poru against Alexander. He was mocked at and thrown out of the court.
He nurtured Chandragupt to realise his dream of a nation streching from Punjab to present day Bengal. Fortunately Alexander died and Chandragupt was able to defeat Selucus, Greek general to unify the kingdoms under one banner.

Re: # 93

you can find even more dirt on Brahmanism on dalistan.org. Buddhism did differ with Vedic philosophy on some matters especially caste system whereas had similar views on others eg reincarnation, karma. But the point that we are talking about is Hindus wiping out/killing buddhism violently.
About your reply, here are a few things I would question:

``We find in the history of India, king after king came into power by Brahmin help``

apart from kautilya/Chandragupta, which is very well known are there other ex. you can quote. The only other is know of is the Peshwai where the Brahmin Peshwas continued and expanded the Maratha power.

``disgusted by the tyranny of Brahmins and accepted Buddhism``

Asoka didn`t accept Buddhism because of Brahmin tyranny, but because he was disgusted by the savagery and death on the kalinga war field, he didn`t dissolve his army. He just made it into a defence forces rather than an offense one. There are other ex of emperors becoming monks in their later years, (asokas grandfather (?) becoming a Jain monk and ending his life) Even in hinduism the last phase of life is described as leading a life of an ascetic.

``They already had acquired legal and religious right to kill the unwanted king through codification by Manu.``

ex please

``Explaining how Brahmins frequently used Indian usurpers and even foreign invaders as an instrument of enforcement of Brahmanism over masses,``

I understand indian rulers like rajput gave more importance to vedic traditions but whats with foreign invaders?

Ambedkar was disillusioned by hinduism, but had a negative perspective on islam too. He was offered to become a muslim but declined in favor of buddhism.
Moreover, this ambedkar.org is an anti-manuwadi site, not that i care.



``This could have been one of the reasons why more and more SCAs (Shudras, Chandalas and Adivasis) embraced Islam in India in the second millennium``

there is no denying it. even today it happens.

``Or had they forced all the BKVs (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas) to convert to Islam, their job would have been accomplished. But even in their eight hundred years of hegemonic rule, they did not do that. ``

converts belong to all strata of society. its not restricted to only dalits. Akbars reign did relax the climate as he saw the advantage of stability. 100% conversion of the population as happened in iran, afghanistan, central asia could not happen in india because of the strong faith and tradition of the native religion/culture. any forceful conversion would have led to acrimony and alienation of the populace. but there are eg of hindus being bribed/favored/coerced to accept islam. Ofcourse, the destruction of religious sites and capture of slaves did`t make things better. i think sikhs would not have turned militant if aurangzeb had not tried to become a ghazi.
Even numerous muslim historians who accompanied ghouri/ghazni have given a detailed acoount of their raids.

Re: # 82
Thats so cool to meet a fellow Pilot.
You must have ATP ratings too.

`` Hindu Killed Bhuddist theory...``


would you like me to quote from Dr Ambredkar in this regard....

at
http://www.ambedkar.org/books/dob9.htm



he has mercilessly exposed what he has called Brahmanism......and its atrocities...


significant are his mention of the `` kulinism `` and the exploitation of the ruling Classes in the suppression of Bhuddism...


``We find in the history of India, king after king came into power by Brahmin help, but got disgusted by the tyranny of Brahmins and accepted Buddhism. Brahmins had to find another usurper or invader to replace him. They already had acquired legal and religious right to kill the unwanted king through codification by Manu. Explaining how Brahmins frequently used Indian usurpers and even foreign invaders as an instrument of enforcement of Brahmanism over masses, Swami Dharma Teertha observes:


``So complete was the destruction that modern antiquarians and historians who have gathered Buddhist sacred books from all parts of Asia have not succeeded in gleaning any valuable text from India. [Swami: 1946: 108] ``


....There is too much material at this site to be posted here...Just go through it...



an interesting observtion regarding the forcefull conversion theroy is...

``
``... Islam seems to have emerged more as a reaction to the Vedic inequality as an anti-caste social synthesiser. Brahmins of India not only appear to have been authors of ``natural inequality`` but were also the first propagandists of that theory on the globe. ... The birth of Islam, it appears to me, has taken place to establish a total civil societal homogenisation within the sphere of religion. It put the religious equality of the people who embraced it on much more solid foundations. This could have been one of the reasons why more and more SCAs (Shudras, Chandalas and Adivasis) embraced Islam in India in the second millennium. If Muslim rulers were to force the Indians to embrace Islam they would have easily changed this country into an Islamic one. Or had they forced all the BKVs (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas) to convert to Islam, their job would have been accomplished. But even in their eight hundred years of hegemonic rule, they did not do that. What attracted SCAs to Islam is its religious democratic culture - the culture of aa gale milna.`` [``Meantime``, Jan. 11, 2000, p.38]

There are many scholars who try to depict Muslim rulers merely as tyrants converting Hindus to Islam by force. The point to understand is you can convert people forcibly, but you can not retain them forcibly. So Kancha Ilaiah`s analysis of Islamic invasions appears to be more rational. ``

........and he has also Claimed ``...... The assimilative power ......`` of this land to Bhuddism..... not Hinduism..... which in his views profess `` Exclusivity ``......Not
`` Inclusivity ``

Netizen #91: ``You had mentoined earlier about Punjabis being invaded by Hindus. Could you please elaborate.``

I do not view invasions along religious lines. I view them along civilizational lines. And along family lines. The invasions of various civilizations of the Sub-Continent, had more to do with powerful families spreading their empires, than anything else. Be they Akbar or Ashoka or Victoria. They killed anyone that came in their way, be he/she Muslim or Hindu.........

Punjab is one of the most invaded areas of the world. It has rarely been ruled by Punjabis. Following is one record of a Hindu family invading it and occupying it. Though I look at this as more of one ethnic dynasty coquering another:

``Chandragupta, who belonged to the caste of warriors (kshatriya), was a pupil of a famous Brahman teacher, Kautilya. His coup was more than just the take-over of a kingdom, it was a religious counterrevolution, because the lawful kings of Magadha, the so-called Nanda dynasty, had not belonged to the warrior caste. They had been mere commoners, said to be descendants of a barber. When Chandragupta claimed the throne, their heresy came to an end and orthodox Brahmanism was vindicated. Or so it seemed.

Once Chandragupta had conquered the Nanda throne, he invaded the Punjab. He was lucky. In 317, one of Alexander`s successors, Peithon, the satrap of Media, tried to subdue the leaders of the eastern provinces, who united against him. This civil war offered Chandragupta the opportunity he needed and he was able to capture Taxila, the capital of the Punjab.``

Re: # 89 Romair

You had mentoined earlier about Punjabis being invaded by Hindus. Could you please elaborate.

Re: # 88

``Pakistanis have not done any original research in this area. ``

and still they hold such views. Isn`t that amazing.

ranjit #77: ``You want us hindus to overlook the communal issues in the subcontinent, ignore historical grudges and be secular in our outlook. Fair enough!! ``

I neither want you to overlook communal issues, nor do I want you to ignore historical grudges. Nor do I want you to be secular. I just want you to portray history objectively. And not within the boundary of one religion. And not to portray historical events within current contexts.

First and foremost, you need to get out of this phase of trying to portray the history of the Sub-Continent as that of one entity. Being invaded by external powers. It was never one entity.

Secondly, I want you to consider all invaders to be invaders. Not just Muslim invaders to be invaders. And Hindus and everyone else to be merely the invadees. Everyone, regardless of religion and ethnicities, invaded and tried to conquer others, during those days. To glorify invaders of one religion, just because of their religion, is wrong. It doesn`t matter if they were Muslim or Hindu...........

Hence, Indian, the large entity of today, was never invaded by Muslims. Smaller areas and civilizations that constitue India and Pakistan, were invaded by anyone and everyone, from the inside and outside who wanted to make a quick buck.........

And finally, invasions and occupations are wrong. They are equally wrong if they are based on religion, or ethnicity or race or economics or anything else..........

As for Kashmir, let the people decide what they want to do. That is the only humane solution...........

Netizen:

Pakistanis have not done any original research in this area. Most of this sanitisation of history was done after the Partition in India by famous Marxist historians, such as Romilla Thapar, Chakravarty, Mukhopadyay and others, funded by the Indian Historical Coucil (?) or some such council.

``Please do not blame Muslims for this refrain.`

it is based on my personal experience. THere are a few points that were raised at each and every debate that i had with indian muslims. I was truly amazed as how could each one of them independently have the same understanding of things around them. These points were:
1. self-determination for kashmiris and eventual freedom for them.
2. hindus destroying buddhism/buddhists viharas and hence its fine if muslims destroyed hindu temples
3. palestinian intifada against israel and cutting off diplomatic relations with Israel
4. muslims have huge familes because they are poor, not the other way round
5. whenever uniform civil code issue is raised then they argue about Hindu Joint family act.

none of these are not taught in our history book, even ``hindus killed buddhists`` theory. I think it is a parallel school of thought running among the community. Having its own views and understanding of history. You must have seen a few articles among pakis about ``hindus killed buddhists`` theory, i don`t suppose they learnt it from indian commies.

Netizen#64:

``It is a common refrain among muslims (even indian muslims) that hindus made Buddhism extinct in india``

Please do not blame Muslims for this refrain. Muslims of my generation read the same history I did. We were never fed this story line in our history books in the early 1950s and you wouldn`t find any Muslims in pre-partition India making such statements. None of the Buddhist countries from Burma to Japan made such statements. Even Ambedkar who was full of angst against caste Hindus never made such allegations as far as I know.

Muslims are now simply saying what the Nehru-inspired Marxist historians taught in their attempt to ``secularise`` and ``sanitize`` history to blame anything bad that happened in India on the big bad brahminical Hindus. So, chalk this one too to your Nehruvian heritage, along with socialism and religion-based civil laws.

Those who say that Kashmir is an unfinished business of India`s partition have a point. Those who say that India should honour its pledge to Kashmiris and to the UN also have a point. I also respect those Muslims in Kashmir and Pakistan who are honest enough to say ``Pakistan se rishta kya, La Ilaha L`ilah``.

But I have no respect for those who talk in terms of human rights and the rights of Kashmiris when they are talking, in fact, about Muslims only. There are Hindu Kashmiris, Sikh Kashmiris, Christian Kashmiris and Muslim Kashmiris. It is only the Muslims -and that too a minority if the various opinion polls are to be believed- who want to leave India. So, please let us cut the crap and call this what it is - an Islamist struggle by those who think that a majority of Muslims cannot live under Hindu rule.

As for human rights, my Indian friends keep reminding of how these separatists have cleansed the valley of its Hindus. They should, instead, point out to the cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from the Kashmir which became `Azad`, according to Pakistanis. Muzaffarabad had a majority of Hindus and Sikhs before it became Azad; now the number of Hindus and Sikhs in that place is a big fat ZERO and that too without those poor people starting a violent secession; this is the kind of `Azadi` that these `human rights activists` want to extend to all of Kashmir. One wonders how such people can even talk in terms of demanding human rights for Kashmiris; the last time I checked, the number of Muslims in Kashmir was not zero, heck it has trippled since the time it became part of Kashmir. And the Kashmiri language and culture has remained vibrant under Indian ``occupation`` while it has disappeared in the land of the ``pure`` and its sons now proudly claim Urdu to be their language.

So, please be honest and say we want Kashmir out of India because it has a Muslim majority and India has a Hindu majority.

The One thing which I have learned so far is..that..

history is subjective and relative .....and is mostly coloured by the point of view of the Narrator..

..

Thanks everybody. Much obliged for your interest.

This article was not in the context of India or Pakistan. In fact, even their names did not exist during these times. It only tried to view the Central Asian & South Asian linkage from a different perspective. (from ethnic and not the usual religious angle)

Ejaz Gul

You are back from the desert trip. Write about that desert wilderness.

Dehliwallah

Yes. I was IFR Rated. Flew in Airline. Bur presently, I am an office Jockey issuing Licences to Pilots & other Aviation Personnel.

nhk