Our Turkic Connection

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

Re:atif2#41
``My personal opinion is that deep down Indians look towards west for the import of high culture``

Actually you have a point here. It is high time we hindus pick up some ``culture`` from the Islamic world, because that is the only way we can fight against jehadi threats. Loha lohe ko kaatta hai. I like the utter ruthlessness of Islamic countries towards minorities and neighboring countries unlike India which is so soft that anyone can walk in and blow up our temples without any repercussions.

We Indians are more concerned about political correctness and communal peace rather than crushing jihad. Any other country would have adopted drastic measure a long time back. India is so impotent that since 1989 Pakistan has been steadily sending people over to commit terrorism but India will not respond, short of offering platitudes. I cannot figure out why it will not even cut off the water supply in Kashmir to Pakistan. This entire jihad nonsense can be stopped in 2 days by drying up Pakistan but it needs guts.

Re: # 78

``was that hindus had gathered their best and finest warriors inside the temple and without razing the whole dam thing down there was no other way for ghaznavi to fight the hindus ``

thats quite different than what the indian commie historians tell us. According to them the hindus had accumulated gold, silver, gems in their temples and hence poor Mahmood had no choice but to pull it down to get the booty. Similar to what is happening in iraq, Bush just wants oil its unfortunate that poor iraqis are sitting on it.

the other eye-opening thing is that Urdu`s classical period had produced one mr. Molana Mohammad Hussein Azad who had written a sorta fantastical piece glorifying Ghaznavi`s barbaric act. Now Azad probably was never even around during the life and times of Jinnah and TNT etc. he was the guy of earlier times living i believe in lucknow and cooking up ludicrous pieces about muslim glory and ``idol-breaker`` ghaznavi. now, that is something.

``no one in class openly questioned why the temple was attacked. or why the idols were destroyed. ``

actually, i happened to have asked this in my pak. studies class back in the day because for some reason it didnt jive with the other stuff we were being fed about pak. being all so cool with minorities whats with the white portion of the flag and all - and the answer which now seem more like an improv. was that hindus had gathered their best and finest warriors inside the temple and without razing the whole dam thing down there was no other way for ghaznavi to fight the hindus (hindu as a word had connotations of being racially inferior and a coward)...at that time ..admittedly it did sound like a good enuff answer...


this is just a memory triggered by ana`s interact.

Re:Romair#67 and #74

You want us hindus to overlook the communal issues in the subcontinent, ignore historical grudges and be secular in our outlook. Fair enough!! However, this secularism is not good enough for Kashmiris. They must be given the right to break off from India on communal grounds, that too after cleansing hindus from the Kashmir Valley. This is the height of double standards.

If Indians should overlook the past and ignore all the unpleasant events of the 1000 years and partition, then Kashmiris must also ignore all the recent past and adjust to living in India. India gives them full citizenship and democratic rights along with a secular polity. It is not some colony of India but a province like any other. So Kashmiris have no basis to leave the union.

Romair,

You are such a big time bullshitter, that I generally ignore your posting - but you
are now into your al-taquiyah type manipulation.
The genocidal and destructive acts of Islamic invaders in India (or
you may pretend not to know) is there for anyone who want to open their eyes and
see the evidence.
There is nothing comparable in Indian history that is compared to the acts of
islamic invaders. The islamic chroniclers themselves describe the thousands of
temples destroyed and thousands upon thousands put to the sword.
There was not one major temple in North India left without damage !!
Can you tell us how many temples and viharas are left in Pakistan.
Pakistan used to be the place where Shaivite and Buddhist panths flourished - look
what remains.

Check out these two urls:
http://www.voi.org/books/htemples1/
http://www.voi.org/books/htemples2/
These writings are so solid that the usual apologists
and commies in India run scared from even debating with scholars such
as Arun Shourie.

i think you all are in a never-ending circular argument about invaders in the sub-continent, and as usual sidetracking from the article itself.

invaders are invaders, no matter who they were, and what disguise they were in. but let us not claim that one was better than the other. there was raping and pillaging aplenty when sikandar ``e-azam`` (that`s alexander the great for the non-urdu/hindi speaking folk) made his way with his armies into india. and there was destruction of temples with mahmud ghaznavi, and what these invaders did cannot be denied. i remember, beginning in class iv, in the school i attended in lahore, learning about specific rulers and invaders, and the arrival of muhammad bin qasim, followed not too long after by ghaznavi (or ghazni, as we learned it). i remember the specific event, or highlight of ghaznavi`s time in the sub-continent was the attack of somnath. that was held up as something done for the glory of islam. no one in class openly questioned why the temple was attacked. or why the idols were destroyed. but i remember being horrified at how it was described as we took notes. this was part of our history lessons. there was mohenjodaro and harappa, there was buddha, there was chandragupta maurya and asoka, and then there was 711 a.d. . . and what followed. an invasion tends to involve death and destruction. these are the palimpsests of history that our lands were a part of. and not all invaders were interested in co-existing with those they conquered. mauryan violence was rampant until asoka renounced it. and ghazni, mahmud ghazni certainly had no interest in co-existing with hindus. if he did, he had a strange way of showing it.

if it makes some feel better to value one invasion over the other. . . that is your trip. but these justifications do not hide the fact that most invasions were not without destruction of some sort. somebody always lost something of value. be it life, symbols of faith, something.

rsidhar #72: ``India might have been invaded by various civilizations (Greeks, Mongols, etc), only the Islamic civilization used religion to loot and plunder non-muslims. ``

- This is an interesting comment. Are you 100% sure that none of the non-Muslim invaders of any of the provinces of the Sub-Continent ever carried out loot and plunder in the name of their religion?

- Are you suggesting that the invading Muslims only killed Hindus? They never attacked any Muslims? Considering the fact that Muslims ruled India for 700-800 years, and it was not just one dynasty, one would have to assume that the invading Muslims fought other Muslim dynasties. Wouldn`t you think?

- Also, do you think it is alright to use anything other than religion to loot and plunder others. For example, if I loot a Tamil not because of his ethnicity, it is alright? Don`t you think it is wrong to loot an invade others, regardless of the reasoning............

I don`t think one should try to justify invasions to suit one`s own ideals. An invader is an invader. Doesn`t matter if he is Hindu or Muslim or Bhuddhist. Such justifications only result in minority communities being targeted..........

re:41 by atif2
``My personal opinion is that deep down Indians look towards west for the import of high culture.``
By west, if u mean Pakistan, Afghanistan, that is a joke. These countries have no culture whatsoever of their own and pass off the ``Indic culture`` as their own.
For eg, let any Paki here tell us what is so unique about Paki culture. If it is dress, then that dress existed before Pak came into existence. There is nothing like a Paki cuisine. Only, Pakis won`t believe it. And, even their national language, Urdu, was imported from India!
I have however formed a list of Uniquely Paki behavior or call it culture. Here goes:
1. Honor killing: This is not found anywhere else in the Indian Subcontinent. A father can agree to gang-rape of his daughter if he thinks she has hurt his honor and the village court (comprised of scrotum-scratching, bearded senile idiots) will even pass that verdict.
2. Rape verdict: In the ``land of the pure``, a woman needs 3 witnesses (or is it 4) to prove she was raped.
3. Religious frenzy: From the time a Paki male wakes up to the time he goes to sleep, he would have taken allah`s name a zillion times. Still, one wonders, why is Allah not kind to him? Is Allah on a long vacation or what?
4. The two extremes: You can see the 2 extremes in a Paki. He is either very kind to you (witness the outpouring of love during the Indo Pak Cricket match in Pak) or would not hesitate to kill you (witness the jehad unleashed on Kahmir by the Pakis). In other ways also , this extremes can be seen. An average Paki hates Indians but loves to watch Bollywood movies. During the study of Indian history, we used to learn about a muslim ruler by name Md bin Tughlaq. He was a man given to the extremes (his name in some parts of India implies an eccentric person). Perhaps Pakis carry his genes.
5. Kashmir: Where can Pakis be without Kashmir? Nowhere, i guess. K word is in their blood. Alas, Allah has been unkind even here. For all the breast beatings and ``hai taubas``, K has not moved any closer to Pak than it has been 50 years ago.
6. Racial superiority: It was Ayub Khan who said that 1 Paki is equal to 8 Indians. He was no doubt comparing his own physique with that of the then PM LBS (who was very small). This slogan was popular among Paki Army circles until 1971 when India thrashed Pak in the war liberating Bangladesh. Now, we do not hear this anymore but one may still hear Pakis say now and then that they are racially superior. If it makes them feel good, i would say, so be it.
These are some of the unique Paki features. One may add many more but i think i will stop here.
Sridhar

re:#63 by Romair
India might have been invaded by various civilizations (Greeks, Mongols, etc), only the Islamic civilization used religion to loot and plunder non-muslims. The nexus between muslim rulers and the Clergy that existed then can be seen even today. This is one reason why muslims are unable to come to terms with modernity.
Sridhar

ranjit #49, {``Yaar, my bitterness comes from the non-stop violence and killing going on in Kashmir and the never ending peace talks with Pakistan that do not lead to anything concrete. If we had normal relations, we can close the chapter on communal issues once and for all and move on in life.``}

The violence, bombings, and killings need to stop, no matter where they are occurring. We should do what is in the best interests of people, not just a 19th/20th century concept of we need the land, even if we have to accept the people with it.

Does Pakistan really care for the poor Kashmiris - Muslims or Hindus. I don`t think that Pakistan really cares. They don`t care for the Paki citizens stranded for 34 years in BD - and these were Pakis who supported Pakistand.

Let`s move on in life, rather than try to kill ourselves to kill a few more of our neighbors.

Re: # 67

``And not try to just view it is a group of Muslim invaders invading Hindu invadees of a country called India (which never existed, before 47)......... ``

most of india was a united empire even in B.C. Yes, it did disintegrate into smaller kingdoms once the empire weakened. but there did exist a case to unify it under one rule. each community developed slightly differently depending on the weather/geography but the language/culture still had the same common basis. Its like a tree with different branches but springing from the same roots. As the civilisation is very old, each branch had sufficient time to get its own distinct culture and tradition. moreover i would agree that places like nagaland have less in common with the rest of the country.
So even if cannot say Ghazni invaded india, but you cannot be wrong by saying that he invaded a hindu kingdom.
Modern europe is also very different than the medieval europe. there were different kingdoms/states. Germany itself didn`t exist as a unified German state until Bismarck came. That doesn`t mean that germans should not have united. Same with Italy, until the nationalists like Garibaldi.

Re: # 67
Please concern yourself with the plight of muslims in pakistan.Let indian muslims take care of themselves , which include those from Jammu and Kashmir.Kashmir is dead.Long live the state of Jammu and Kashmir of the Indian Union!!!.

........and next time an invader is defeated and beaten, don`t shower him with gifts......so he may come back and kill you..........

ranjit #65: ``In spite of all the peace moves in Kashmir, people are regularly being killed there by militants with active support from across the border.``

There is far too much brainwashing on what is going on in Kashmir. Which is quite unfortunate.

I think the best solution to this is to ask the Kashmiris, themselves, who is killing them, and who is supporting them. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about Kashmiris, and not attempting to use them for his/her own political purposes, should agree to this. Otherwise such individuals are just patronizing. I think the problem starts when others try to speak for Kashmiris.........Why not let the Kashmiris speak........After all it is the Kashmiris, who are the ones being killed........

So would you agree to let them decide who is their enemy and who is their saviour? And how they would like to spend the rest of their lives. Speaking as a Kashmiri, I certainly would agree to that.......I hope you agree as well, since you seem to presenting yourself, as their well-wisher............

``If hindus are angry and willing to dig up the past, it is because the muslims keep reminding them of it with their actions. ``

This is a very dangerous train of thought. Specifically for a majority community. And specifically in India, which has such a large Muslim community. Digging up the past, and then making decisions for the present-day, is counterproductive for India, itself.

If you can see any good that will come out of it, please let me know.........

Pakistanis are quite secure in Pakistan. Any kind of anti-Muslim feeling, in India, does not affect them. When I read comments on this site, from various Indian colleagues, calling Mulsims bastards, rapists and murderers, etc. it does not affect me. Because I know I am immune from it. Someone calling Muslims names, on this site, would not dare do so, while standing in the middle of Lahore, or Islamabad, or Karachi..........And I know that.....So I feel secure.

However, I have to assume, such a stance must scare the hell out of Indian Muslims. They, and not Pakistani Muslims, are the ones who will become victims of such thinking. And that can only be harmful, domestically, for India..........

One cannot, thus, habitually, blame everything on Muslim invaders and on Pakistan. Neither the Muslim invaders are harmed, since they are dead. Nor are the Pakistanis harmed, since they sit across a well-defended border. However, all that anger and frustration will have to be taken out somewhere. And I see only one target: Indian Muslims...........And that will only communalise India.........

One good way to get around all this, is to let each community (Kashmiris, in this case) speak for themselves. Rather than forcefully becomign their spokesperson. The secocnd is to study history, objectively, by looking at all the invasions. And not try to just view it is a group of Muslim invaders invading Hindu invadees of a country called India (which never existed, before 47).........