Our Turkic Connection

vivek #109: ``it is only one culture with minor variations and it is a single civilization.``

Could you define some basis for this argument, other than religion and a few poems by someone, and a prayer. I can provide you with tons and tons of poetry and prayers that refer to all Muslims as one civilization. Do you think they are all part of one civilization?

A civilization has certain common bases. These include:

- Common geographic features
- Common language
- Common physical features
- Common dress, food, behaviors, etc.
- Common culture
etc.

While I certainly have a common culture with Indian Punjabis, I certainly don`t feel anything common with Indian Tamils, or Bengalis etc. They are as alien to me as someone from London or Frankfurt.........

Netizen #110: ``Maybe they have realised that in unity we stand, divided (as we had been for centuries) we always suffered.``

I generally agree with what you have stated, in the first part of your paragraph. And I agree with the above statement. I think they have realized it. And I think if the current Indian boundaries hold, India may be one civilization, after people intermarry across current cultural boundaries, within India. Same will happen to Pakistan, if its boundaries hold.........

However, we are discussing history of India. Not the present day India (or Pakistan, for that matter). EU may become one civilization in a hundred years also, as people move around and inter-marry.......But it wasn`t one historically.......

Having said that, I think you need to define, in more detail, what you mean by, ``they.`` Whom does that include? Are you refering only to Indian Hindus? Or all Indians, including Muslims and Sikhs and Christians?

``THey first thing they did after capturing Constantinople was to convert the Catheral into a mosque. I don`t think any european kingdom would have done that.``

The amount of violence and killings and barbarism perpetrated by various Europeans is by far larger than what anyone else did. Converting one mosque to a Cathedral is wrong. But compare that to what Hitler did to Jews, just a few decades ago. Or the inquisitions. The largerst wars, by a large margin, of the last century were fought amongst various European nations. WW I and WW II being two examples.

Another point you may want to keep in mind. Muslims (and Jews) lived in Spain for 800 years. When the Christains conquered Spain, within a short time, they got rid of the Muslims and Jews.

How many Muslims and Jews live in Spain today? Virtually none. Compare that to the Muslim rule in India. Muslims ruled for 600-800 years, yet there are still far more Hindus in India, than Jews and Muslims in Spain .....In fact, Hindus are still the overwhelming majority in India. While Muslims are extinct form Spain. Had Ferdanand and Isabella coquered India, I think they may not have left behind any Hindus in India.........

One needs to keep everything in perspective. All kings were bad. Muslim kings were no worse than kings of any other religion. All were trying to expand their empires, and killed anyone and everyone......

re: cruelty of muslim rulers/ invaders of India
This is from the book ``The British Impact on India`` by Percival Griffiths.
Excerpts:
(Three hundred years after the Arab conquest of Sindh Muslims from Ghazni and Ghor in Afghanistan entered by the true gateway, and for the first time the Hindus of the North were brought up against a relentless and proselytising foe. The invaders, who were mainly Turks, were men of a very different type from the cultured Arabs who had conquered Sindh. Fanaticism and greed of wealth and power played a large part in their make-up, and both these vices lured them on to India. Mahmud of Ghazni had dedicated his life to war on the Unbeliever, and had gathered about him a body of zealots, to whom war and pillage in the name of Islam were the be-all and end-all of earthly life. Again and again they poured down into the plains of the northwest, slaying, ravaging, and enforcing acceptance of Islam, and then returning to their mountain home with vast booty and the coveted title of Ghazi, or slayer of infidels. Their fierce fanaticism and their belief that death in a holy war ensured entry into paradise made them pitiless, and consequently far more terrifying than ordinary invaders. Throughout the Muslim annals of this period runs the note of exultation in the massacre or torture of infidels. Thus Minhaj-ud-din writes of an occasion on which the Muslims defeated the Hindus, `killing fifteen thousand of them, spreading them like a carpet over the ground and making them food for beasts and birds of prey`. Two hundred years later the same spirit still prevailed, and we are told, in a panegyric on Kutb-ud-din Aibak, that `his gifts were bestowed by hundreds of thousands and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands`.)
In another place, the same author writes:
(When Ala-ud-din, the Khalji ruler of Delhi at the beginning of the fourteenth century, consulted his principal adviser about the treatment of the conquered Hindus, he received the reply that `they are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the taxcollector chooses to spit into the mouth of a Hindu, the latter must open his mouth without hesitation`.)
Lest we think not all muslim rulers were so cruel, the intensity of cruelty varied only in degrees. While Timurlane was ruthless, Akbar saw it fit to use leniency towards Hindus (for being faithful and subservient) as an important element of statecraft.
Author notes:
(There were two schools of Islamic thought regarding the treatment of non-Muslim subjects. According to the stricter school, every weapon of the state should be used to bring about the conversion of the infidel, who must indeed be offered only the choice of Islam or death. Such an extreme principle naturally had to be considerably modified in practice, particularly when the infidel subjects so greatly outnumbered the Muslim conquerors, and the actual treatment of the Hindus at any given time depended largely on the character of the emperor and the security of his throne. During part of this period, indeed, Hindus constituted an important element in the Mughal armies, and held great tracts of land as virtually independent Rajas, subject only to the payment of tribute. When the Mughals under Timur invaded India after their conversion to Islam, one of their main pretexts was the desire to punish the Muslim kings of Delhi for their leniency towards the Hindu idolaters)
Again and again we see this oppression in various degrees. Again from the book:
(On the other hand, we read more frequently of periods when the Hindus suffered extreme persecution, and the annals of the Muslims are full of bloodthirsty gloating over the wholesale massacre and oppression of infidels. The Jizya or poll-tax on non-Muslims was a marked feature of Muslim rule. Even in the reign of one of the best of the early Muslim kings of Delhi, Muhammad Tughlaq, it was laid down as a matter of state policy that the Hindus must not be allowed to amass wealth. The reason for this policy may have been political rather than religious, but that can have been of little comfort to the Hindus, and it may safely be said that during most of the Muslim period the Hindus suffered a considerable degree of oppression.)
And the result:
Mass conversion to that religion just to escape from relentless oppression. Anybody who says that sufism brought conversions in large numbers in North India is clearly wrong. This might have happened in the South but not in the North.
In a way, British rule brought a level playing field and new ideas that Hindus latched on to, ideas like democrazy, secularism etc. These have united disparate group of hindus and given muslims in India a chance of being in a participatory democrazy (a privelege not availabe to the muslims of Pakistan). However much it impoverished India, British rule did unite the hindus in ways not possible before and gave them a sense of nationhood (as they fought unitedly against the British rule) that was lacking before.
Muslims, who constantly rejected new ideas under the British (dismissing them as unislamic) are to this date lagging behind in every respect be it science or governance.
Sridhar

Sridhar

re: Romair`s post
``Sub-Continent never had a, ``native`` culture. It still doesn`t.``
Depends on what your definition of culture is.
Is American culture same as European culture? It is not and yet there are common values: like democracy, belief in secularism, religious freedom etc.
Ancient India was bound by a common religious and spiritual experience even though there were many cultures and subcultures. In the past, scriptures and common belief referred to India as Bharat and ``Aryavarta`` and the region as ``Jambudwipa``. The idea was there in people`s consciousness but British rule helped consolidate that idea into a geo-political entity. It would not be wrong to say that without british, there would be no India (this is not to say that British rule was good but it had its unintended good consequence).
Sridhar

Re: # 114

I have a very good article for you:

http://www.i3pep.org/archives/2004/11/23/nation-and-nationalism-one/

``Having said that, I think you need to define, in more detail, what you mean by, ``they.`` Whom does that include? Are you refering only to Indian Hindus? Or all Indians, including Muslims and Sikhs and Christians? ``

it refered to hindus until the muslim came and all after the europeans came. Right now its the citiznes of the country.

``The amount of violence and killings and barbarism perpetrated by various Europeans is by far larger than what anyone else did. Converting one mosque to a Cathedral is wrong. But compare that to what Hitler did to Jews, just a few decades ago. Or the inquisitions. The largerst wars, by a large margin, of the last century were fought amongst various European nations. WW I and WW II being two examples. ``

europe was in a constant cycle of warfare with every kingdom divided into two groups untill all were totally emaciate and drained. Eventually the treaty of Westphalia brought some peace. but still each nation state was trying to outdo other and two or more powers would align to check the emerging power, hence it was always in a state of war. constant change in technology, economy/discovery kept the competition hot. Hence you see several powers rising and falling b/t 1400 to 2000.
what hitler did was unspeakable and horrified even germans. THere was anti-semitic feelings in preNazi time too but by gassing jews he just unimaginable things. He must have killed 6 millions jews, but because of him ~30 millions russians+ukrainians died.
europoean states were the only ones who had the means to subjugate others because of their technological/military advances.
Turks had an equally bloody history. THe armenian genocide which they keep on denying is an eg. Now they are ready to accept it because of a chance of joining EU. Turks along with tartar-monglas were known to raid the russian frontiers for booty and women. they too subjugated whom ever they could like the bulgarians, moldovans, greeks, serbs, romanians.
Infact if england and france had not helped them in Crinean war, they would have been routed by russians.

``Another point you may want to keep in mind. Muslims (and Jews) lived in Spain for 800 years. When the Christains conquered Spain, within a short time, they got rid of the Muslims and Jews.

How many Muslims and Jews live in Spain today? Virtually none. Compare that to the Muslim rule in India. Muslims ruled for 600-800 years, yet there are still far more Hindus in India, than Jews and Muslims in Spain .....In fact, Hindus are still the overwhelming majority in India. While Muslims are extinct form Spain. Had Ferdanand and Isabella coquered India, I think they may not have left behind any Hindus in India......... ``

spainiards were ruthless and wiped out the moors from the iberian peninsula because they were reclaiming their territory. It was the north africans who had centuries ago driven the visigoths out of that area. Spanish were very fanatic, forget about getting rid of muslims and jews they didn`t even spare the Protestants in europe and in america. Ribault and his men were murdered in cold blood on the coast of florida simply because they didn`t ``convert`` to catholicism.
the lesser said of cruelty of the conquistadors the better.

Mughals continued to rule under Akbar because of the understanding with the rajputs and other local rulers. there wasn`t much of territory directly under mughals they allowed others to rule but pay taxes and keep army ready for the empire service.
akbar played it well. Even shivajis faher was a local sardar for the bijapur kingdom. infact at one point of time when shivaji was in difficult position, aurangzeb could have got him to work for the mughals and thereby strengthened the empire, but he was more interested in spreading islam than miantain his kingdom and had antagonised many communities.

Re: # 115
...all muslim kings were cruel...whereas, other kings from other religions were benevolent potentates who sought common man`s approval before committing any cruelty...happy..;)

Netizen #117: I pretty much agree with everything you have stated, in your reply. The article you have provided is excellent. It basically states, quite a bit more articulately, what I have been trying to state (barring the generic, ``Pakistan should not have been created,`` ``Jinnah was evil,`` etc. stuff that seems to unfortunately exists in almost every article by Indian authors).

The only negative of the article is that, like too many articles from various Indian authors, it unnecessarily brings Pakistan into the picture. And that too without taking the sentiments of Pakistanis into account, at all. For example, the author blanketly states that India and Pakistan should have been one, and could live together, without bothering to consider what Pakistanis think. That would be like me saying that Punjab should have been one, as the Pakistanis wanted, and the Sikhs should never have broken it, without my understanding the sentiments of the Sikhs. Or saying that Bangladesh should never have been created, without taking the sentiments of Bangladeshis into account.

I would like to see more of such well-informed articles, that just concentrate on India.............Specifically if they are about the history of India - a time when there was no Pakistan............

Tehmed # 32

(even if he has not taken the trouble to put the jumble of facts in some proper structure)

The boring history had to be simplified and put shockingly to keep the reader awake. It was not intended to be a lullaby for my English Professor. If it was easily comprehendible, the purpose was achieved. Obviously, I did not create the dates and the available historical facts. I only put them in a sequence and order that best served my intended intention.

The contents had to be strictly relevant to the topic. The Turks covered a vast area and for very a long time. I did not talk about the Azarbaijanis, Georgians or even the Ottomans etc in any detail.

The tone of Godot is something that one should be willing to expect. This is a price one has has to pay for taking the `punga` of writing. I did not respond to him usefully because he seemed to be too worked up.

His observation was that the Turks identity did not come up until 5 AD and I was talking about 400 BC. My article actually talks about the first Turkic political entity in 6 AD. He apprently did not carefully read the article. And has not read the subject as a whole. There were two other genuine errors as well which he did not point out. We are talking here about a 3000 year period and the general flow of the events. Give and take a 100 years - some of which are no more than good guestimations in any case.

Why was I talking about the Turkic people in 400 BC? The Turkic people did exist in those times. And when there are no computers and cell phones but plenty of grass in the Steppes, they did what all did in those times - raise sheep & cattle.

For the present, I have had a enough of Turks. Maybe next time I should pick on my trip to Kathmandu or Buddhism, another topic that interests me. Or the village, where I will be again forced to mention the ethnic environment, still vary much a part of our rural illetrate set up.

Let us enjoy life.

nhk

NHK: Thanks for taking the time to explain why you responded to godot the way you did. While I still think his original point was valid (i.e. about the need for a proper structure, which would no doubt have led to clearer focus on ), to put things in perspective, the overall ``panga`` - to use your word ;-) - you took in undertaking this article was in fact a most welcome one. So, please keep writing your articles which are always interesting and on some original topic.

btw, your point about the hostile tone of godot`s post is a valid one. And I hasten to add that I am probably worse than godot in this way at times, and you are the clear ``leader by example`` in this field. We can all learn civilized interaction from you. Since that promotes thoughtful exchanges.

Here are a few more thoughts on the article: While the article touches upon the history of the ``turkish`` people (which of course includes the central asians), I think it is very relevant to Pakistan. Thus, the ``white huns`` you refer to were accompanied by a number of other tribes (gujjars, e.g.) who lived in the caspian sea area and settled down over a vast area stretching from the himalayas to the north to the deccan in the south and from afghanistan in the west to at least as far east as a north-south line from delhi to mumbai. These settlements took place around the 5th century AD, and a significant population of pakistanis and indians in fact identify themselves with these tribes to this day.

Your article thus provides a glimpse of this broad stretch of largely uncharted territory. And raises questions like the nature of these various waves of migrations of these various tribes from the caspian sea area and central asia. So, before moving on to buddhism and so forth, perhaps you could spare the time to do another article that explores some of these questions in greater depth.

#120 & #121

I’m sorry, but this pathetically written piece cannot be excused no matter how “nice” you want to be. No, I did not bother to read the entire article because I don’t have time to waste, but I did scan it. And yes, I’m hostile because I believe the author is intellectually inept proven by his plagiarism (he has been caught red-handed by one of the interactors in one of his previous “articles,”) his inability to construct sentences correctly, and having no shame for he keeps stealing and presenting it as his material. He is not even a good plagiarist! Any other publication would have trashed his articles.

If Chowk’s purpose is to start a “discussion” no matter how badly written an article is (or even stolen, as in this case,) then might as well do away with the “Front Page” and make it Unplugged where any Tom, Dick or Harry can write anything he/she pleases and start a “discussion.” Publish it for the hell of “discussion.” Who cares if it’s stolen or poorly written. No quality control of the articles published on Front Page is required. The only requirement, according to NHK, is that it is “easily comprehensible.” The writing itself being atrocious matters not!

godot #122 I admire your display of righteous anger. So much emotion and energy!! You should have been a Shakespearan stage actor. Or a replacement for Muhammed Ali on Lollywood.

But why waste this talent on poor NHK? All he did after all was to take a little ``panga`` (as he says) with writing. Why not apply this talent to some truly deserving cases? Hell, I could give you ten other fellows on chowk against whom this talent could be more suitably employed. :-)

Tauheed -

All I am saying is that Chowk needs to maintain some quality control over its contents, or it will never earn respect nor will it be taken seriously from those who visit it, and will certainly be dismissed by other serious publications, print or `net. It`s unfortunate that this article and NHK became a case in point for my harsh criticism. However, if Chowk does not want to be taken seriously, well, then, that`s different.

Godot

I have no ego issues. You consider this article to be of a poor quality. That is fine with me.

Having said that, I think you are boxed into some kind of a perception that `quality` only means dry, boring and legalese form of communication. Yes. Statistical Summeries, formal research papers, economic surveys, reports of commisions, text books or even editorials are expected to be in that form.

But a general writing on an opinion or an idea is pretty much free from any such encumberances. This kind of general human interest subjects, I think, are best conveyed in simple, direct and conversational style. Preferably, in first person.

This article was not meant to be Chapter from History Book. For that, history books are available. This was more of a re-hashing, gleaning and analysis of history to highlight a certain specific aspect. It was certainly not stolen as you allege. In fact, in my decades of reading news papers and magazines, I have not come across any writing which has specifically dealt with this topic. There could be some but I do not know.

Despite my checking and re-checking, I did end up making two historical errors. However, what I wanted to convey, Right or Wrong, that it was mainly `the Turkic people who brought the religious & cultural influences to South Asia and not the so-called Persians, Afghans or the Arabs` was conveyed logically to some degree.

The last para was out of context but I let it go as my favourite theme.

I am not emotionally wedded to any identity - be it ethnic, relgious, national or linguistic. For me, every human being is the same. But I am curious and interested in how these identities inter-play with each other and affect our lives.

nhk

Godot,

NHK has a knack to write about his life experiences, and the knowledge he has accrued in a simple, and a very engaging fashion. The tone in all of his articles, is very inviting. Let us not rake issues out of nothing and that too with people like NHK

NHK -

You are too pathetic to get involved in an intelligent dialogue. You haven’t got a clue. So forget it. Stay happy in your make-believe world.

People admire the Great Wall of China. What about admiring the people that such a wall was built to keep out? :)