Indo-Pak History via Mail
Adi Arun November 10, 2005
#543 Posted by Romair on November 16, 2005 8:50:55 am
Dost-mittar #534: ``But for those of us who regard the subcontinent as a single geographic and civilisational entity with tremendous diversity - and I do not want to get into the 101st round of whether or not the subcontinent is a civilisational entity, this is universally accepted as such and some jealous Pakistanis` complaint is not going to change anything -``
You tend to avoid debates, which may highlight issues you are uncomfortable with. One cannot simply avoid such debates. One has to engage in them and prove one`s point.........
No one has, ``universally`` accepted the Sub-Continent as a civlizational entity! Other than some Indian commentators. Even Samuel Huntington, who considers India and Nepal to be one, ``Hindu`` civilization, does not go as far as including Pakistan and Bangladesh in that civilization. Even for present day, where India is one country. How in the world could one make such a claim historically, when the Sub-Continent was multiple regions and kingdoms.........
If what you say is true, then do tell me what is common between me and someone from Kerela or Tamil Nadu or Gujrat? You can tell us apart from a mile..........And could probably tell our ancestors apart from ten miles.......I have been confused for an Afghan, an Irani (or even a Mexican) but never a Tamil, or Kearaliite, or Gujrati....How in the world are (or were) we a part of the same civilization, if we don`t even have any commonalities after 5000 years?
Could you define the boundaries of this single civlizational entity of the Sub-Continent that you are talking about. Did it go into Iran and Afghanistan and Burma? Why not into Turkmenistan and Iraq? And could you explain under what definition you consider it one entity. And who universally accepts it as an entity? And why Pakistanis would be jealous?
Isn`t the biggest complain Indians have that Pakistanis do not, ``jealously`` defend their South Asian identity enough? Or is it that Pakistanis are jealously trying to be a part of an Indian identity?
The only reason I am debating this is because such a point of view, that claims India to be some sort of a civilizational entity, without feeling the need to provide facts to back it up, is what alienates Muslims in the region. It basically sets the criteria for them, that to be historically part of some entity, they must acknowledge their historical Hindu-ness (or domestic religion-ness, as you present it). Not their Punjabi-ness or Pathan-ness etc.
And once they acknowledge that, they must acknowledge all historical links with all Hindus, anywhere. Even if they have nothing in common with them.....i.e. not only must I acknowledge that my ancestors were Hindus of a certain civilization (let`s say Punjab). This I do acknowledge. As should all Pakistanis. I must also acknowledge that they shared a commonality with areas in present day India, thereby forever linking me with India - an entity that never existed historically, until 55 years ago!
While I am comfortable acknowledge my links with a historical culture of Punjab, which at one time was majority Hindu. Or an Indus culture. Why in the world should I acknowledge a link with the rest of India? It has nothing to do with jealousy. It simply has something to do with fact.............
The argument you are presenting is basically a nuanced form of a Hindu Ummah, concept presented by RSS. They openly declare the Sub-Continent to be one historical religious Hindu Ummah. You are attempting to paint the Hindu religion as a culture. And then claiming that everyone should acknowledge this culture. A culture, which had no common factor than religion............
A civilization has to have certain common features: these include geographical commonalities, language, food, physical features, social customs, clothes, etc. The Sub-Continent never had any of these in common. Which is why it barely ever existed as one entity. Had it been a civilization, it would have naturally moved towards one entity. Yet again and again, it broke away. The only time it remained together, was when it was conquered, under force, by Ashoka and the Brits.......The moment the authoritative force disappeared, it broke up, along some natural lines. Including today.........
There was, infact, only one common link across historical South Asia. And that was religion of some sort. Now is religion enough to constitute a civilization? I certainly don`t think so..........One can, incorrectly, call that religion (Hinduism, Bhuddhism etc.) a, ``culture,`` much like one can do the same with Islam. But even that, ``culture`` could never hold the Sub-Continent together. Primarily because there was never one culture.....................There never was one civilization........
Punjab is a civlizaition. Sind is a civilization. Bengal is one. As is Gujrat and Tamil areas. etc. India is not one. It never was one. Pakistan is not one. It never was one. Bangladesh is the only country in the region, which was one civilization (or today, half of one)............I think it is time that Pakistani Muslims acknowledged they Hindu history of their Punjabi, Sindhi etc. civilizations. And it is time that Indian stopped trying to portray present day India as some sort of a unified hisotrical civilization that everyone in the Sub-Continent should consider themselves a historical member of...............
You tend to avoid debates, which may highlight issues you are uncomfortable with. One cannot simply avoid such debates. One has to engage in them and prove one`s point.........
No one has, ``universally`` accepted the Sub-Continent as a civlizational entity! Other than some Indian commentators. Even Samuel Huntington, who considers India and Nepal to be one, ``Hindu`` civilization, does not go as far as including Pakistan and Bangladesh in that civilization. Even for present day, where India is one country. How in the world could one make such a claim historically, when the Sub-Continent was multiple regions and kingdoms.........
If what you say is true, then do tell me what is common between me and someone from Kerela or Tamil Nadu or Gujrat? You can tell us apart from a mile..........And could probably tell our ancestors apart from ten miles.......I have been confused for an Afghan, an Irani (or even a Mexican) but never a Tamil, or Kearaliite, or Gujrati....How in the world are (or were) we a part of the same civilization, if we don`t even have any commonalities after 5000 years?
Could you define the boundaries of this single civlizational entity of the Sub-Continent that you are talking about. Did it go into Iran and Afghanistan and Burma? Why not into Turkmenistan and Iraq? And could you explain under what definition you consider it one entity. And who universally accepts it as an entity? And why Pakistanis would be jealous?
Isn`t the biggest complain Indians have that Pakistanis do not, ``jealously`` defend their South Asian identity enough? Or is it that Pakistanis are jealously trying to be a part of an Indian identity?
The only reason I am debating this is because such a point of view, that claims India to be some sort of a civilizational entity, without feeling the need to provide facts to back it up, is what alienates Muslims in the region. It basically sets the criteria for them, that to be historically part of some entity, they must acknowledge their historical Hindu-ness (or domestic religion-ness, as you present it). Not their Punjabi-ness or Pathan-ness etc.
And once they acknowledge that, they must acknowledge all historical links with all Hindus, anywhere. Even if they have nothing in common with them.....i.e. not only must I acknowledge that my ancestors were Hindus of a certain civilization (let`s say Punjab). This I do acknowledge. As should all Pakistanis. I must also acknowledge that they shared a commonality with areas in present day India, thereby forever linking me with India - an entity that never existed historically, until 55 years ago!
While I am comfortable acknowledge my links with a historical culture of Punjab, which at one time was majority Hindu. Or an Indus culture. Why in the world should I acknowledge a link with the rest of India? It has nothing to do with jealousy. It simply has something to do with fact.............
The argument you are presenting is basically a nuanced form of a Hindu Ummah, concept presented by RSS. They openly declare the Sub-Continent to be one historical religious Hindu Ummah. You are attempting to paint the Hindu religion as a culture. And then claiming that everyone should acknowledge this culture. A culture, which had no common factor than religion............
A civilization has to have certain common features: these include geographical commonalities, language, food, physical features, social customs, clothes, etc. The Sub-Continent never had any of these in common. Which is why it barely ever existed as one entity. Had it been a civilization, it would have naturally moved towards one entity. Yet again and again, it broke away. The only time it remained together, was when it was conquered, under force, by Ashoka and the Brits.......The moment the authoritative force disappeared, it broke up, along some natural lines. Including today.........
There was, infact, only one common link across historical South Asia. And that was religion of some sort. Now is religion enough to constitute a civilization? I certainly don`t think so..........One can, incorrectly, call that religion (Hinduism, Bhuddhism etc.) a, ``culture,`` much like one can do the same with Islam. But even that, ``culture`` could never hold the Sub-Continent together. Primarily because there was never one culture.....................There never was one civilization........
Punjab is a civlizaition. Sind is a civilization. Bengal is one. As is Gujrat and Tamil areas. etc. India is not one. It never was one. Pakistan is not one. It never was one. Bangladesh is the only country in the region, which was one civilization (or today, half of one)............I think it is time that Pakistani Muslims acknowledged they Hindu history of their Punjabi, Sindhi etc. civilizations. And it is time that Indian stopped trying to portray present day India as some sort of a unified hisotrical civilization that everyone in the Sub-Continent should consider themselves a historical member of...............
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#541 Posted by arjun_m on November 16, 2005 6:40:53 am
Hey behram...why don`t you talk to some of your, err, republican friends..
Anti-Islam Republican convention in Texas
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: A convention of a group of Republicans was due to take place in Texas on Tuesday that critics and concerned Muslims have denounced as anti-Islam.
The group, which calls itself Cherry Tree Republicans, charges that Muslims are bombing Israel, Jordan, England, Spain, France, and that Al Qaeda has training camps “as close as Mexico and South America”. “Our borders,” the convention literature states, “are crossed by thousands illegally every week, including illegal aliens from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran and Syria.”
According to Cherry Tree Republicans from President Bush’s home state and political base, “The key to understanding extremist Muslims is to understand their history. They do not think like we in the west. They are not afraid to die. The inevitability of war, lust for combat and exaltation in death is unlike our western way of thinking.”
Muslims, the group claims, either want to “convert us or kill us”. It goes on to say that “Islam teaches that Muslims must wage war to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim states”. American Muslim groups are said to be engaged in a “huge cover-up of Islamic doctrine and history”, and “today’s jihadi terrorists have the same motives and goals as the Muslims who fought the Crusaders”. The group says that Muslim persecution of Christians has continued for 13 centuries and still goes on.
It goes on to quote certain verses from the Quran by taking them out of context. The snippets chosen to mar the image of Islam and Muslims are: “Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies.” (Quran 8:60); “Fight (kill) them (non-Muslims), and God will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame.” (Quran 9:14); and “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them. It is not ye who slew them; it was God.” (Quran 8:13-17).
Ashraf Abbasi, a leading figure in the Muslim community of Texas and a former president of the Pakistani-American Congress, has urged the community not to be provoked but to educate these “misled youth” about Islam. In a letter of advice circulated to the community, Abbasi writes: “This group of hate-mongers who claim to be Cherry Tree Republicans are brainwashed, which is not their fault but of those who trained them. In this convention, they will make an effort to create more hatred for Islam and Muslims. The verses of the Holy Quran they have quoted are taken out of context to prove their vicious propaganda,” Abbasi said.
“President Bush has repeatedly told the nation and the world that ‘Islam is a religion of peace, harmony and universal brotherhood’ and that ‘Muslims are industrious, law abiding and peace loving people and the acts of a few radicals do not represent Islam’.”
Abbasi has suggested that the Cherry Tree Republicans be presented with the same Quranic verses that they have used to malign Islam, but in the context in which those verses occur in the holy book. He points out that there are a large number of Muslim Americans in the Republican Party, some of them in very prominent positions. The Republican Party cannot afford to lose the support and effective participation of Muslim Americans. Republican Party leaders and Republican congressional leaders should be asked, he goes on to propose, to “stop this insanity and flush out such hate groups from the Republican Party”.
He has called on Muslims to attend the convention, raise questions, have a dialogue with leaders and speakers of the group, and distribute literature about Islam for their education and to deal with this “poisonous propaganda” against “our great religion”.
Anti-Islam Republican convention in Texas
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: A convention of a group of Republicans was due to take place in Texas on Tuesday that critics and concerned Muslims have denounced as anti-Islam.
The group, which calls itself Cherry Tree Republicans, charges that Muslims are bombing Israel, Jordan, England, Spain, France, and that Al Qaeda has training camps “as close as Mexico and South America”. “Our borders,” the convention literature states, “are crossed by thousands illegally every week, including illegal aliens from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran and Syria.”
According to Cherry Tree Republicans from President Bush’s home state and political base, “The key to understanding extremist Muslims is to understand their history. They do not think like we in the west. They are not afraid to die. The inevitability of war, lust for combat and exaltation in death is unlike our western way of thinking.”
Muslims, the group claims, either want to “convert us or kill us”. It goes on to say that “Islam teaches that Muslims must wage war to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim states”. American Muslim groups are said to be engaged in a “huge cover-up of Islamic doctrine and history”, and “today’s jihadi terrorists have the same motives and goals as the Muslims who fought the Crusaders”. The group says that Muslim persecution of Christians has continued for 13 centuries and still goes on.
It goes on to quote certain verses from the Quran by taking them out of context. The snippets chosen to mar the image of Islam and Muslims are: “Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies.” (Quran 8:60); “Fight (kill) them (non-Muslims), and God will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame.” (Quran 9:14); and “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them. It is not ye who slew them; it was God.” (Quran 8:13-17).
Ashraf Abbasi, a leading figure in the Muslim community of Texas and a former president of the Pakistani-American Congress, has urged the community not to be provoked but to educate these “misled youth” about Islam. In a letter of advice circulated to the community, Abbasi writes: “This group of hate-mongers who claim to be Cherry Tree Republicans are brainwashed, which is not their fault but of those who trained them. In this convention, they will make an effort to create more hatred for Islam and Muslims. The verses of the Holy Quran they have quoted are taken out of context to prove their vicious propaganda,” Abbasi said.
“President Bush has repeatedly told the nation and the world that ‘Islam is a religion of peace, harmony and universal brotherhood’ and that ‘Muslims are industrious, law abiding and peace loving people and the acts of a few radicals do not represent Islam’.”
Abbasi has suggested that the Cherry Tree Republicans be presented with the same Quranic verses that they have used to malign Islam, but in the context in which those verses occur in the holy book. He points out that there are a large number of Muslim Americans in the Republican Party, some of them in very prominent positions. The Republican Party cannot afford to lose the support and effective participation of Muslim Americans. Republican Party leaders and Republican congressional leaders should be asked, he goes on to propose, to “stop this insanity and flush out such hate groups from the Republican Party”.
He has called on Muslims to attend the convention, raise questions, have a dialogue with leaders and speakers of the group, and distribute literature about Islam for their education and to deal with this “poisonous propaganda” against “our great religion”.
#540 Posted by arjun_m on November 16, 2005 6:34:54 am
It`s the jihad, stupid..
WASHINGTON: There were 565,039 foreign students studying in the US in 2004-2005, with students from India topping the list, while enrolment from Pakistan fell by 14 percent.
There were a total of 80,466 students from India and only 6,296 from Pakistan. Pakistani students have had a great deal of difficulty in obtaining US visas and even students who had gone home during a break have had trouble returning.
Student enrolment from Pakistan falls in US
By Khalid HasanWASHINGTON: There were 565,039 foreign students studying in the US in 2004-2005, with students from India topping the list, while enrolment from Pakistan fell by 14 percent.
There were a total of 80,466 students from India and only 6,296 from Pakistan. Pakistani students have had a great deal of difficulty in obtaining US visas and even students who had gone home during a break have had trouble returning.
#539 Posted by MantoLives on November 16, 2005 12:46:06 am
samosa,
Your knowledge about partition is almost as illuminating as your defence of Gandhi...
Please read some real history instead of regurgitating same old same old.
Your knowledge about partition is almost as illuminating as your defence of Gandhi...
Please read some real history instead of regurgitating same old same old.
#538 Posted by ballukhan on November 15, 2005 11:16:07 pm
I think the distinction between INTERNAL or EXTERNAL invader is too wooly to be acceptable.
Any invader, whether in the past or in the present, who killed innocent civilians and conducted loots, rapings and plunders in the name of any religion deserves to be condemned. And any one repenting his misdeeds deserves to be appreciated. In that sense Ashoka can be considered to be a true human being.
However, those fed on a steady diet of Pakistan Studies would continue to glorify belligerence against the secular world and would continue supporting the jihadists from LeT and AL-Qaeda.
Any invader, whether in the past or in the present, who killed innocent civilians and conducted loots, rapings and plunders in the name of any religion deserves to be condemned. And any one repenting his misdeeds deserves to be appreciated. In that sense Ashoka can be considered to be a true human being.
However, those fed on a steady diet of Pakistan Studies would continue to glorify belligerence against the secular world and would continue supporting the jihadists from LeT and AL-Qaeda.
#537 Posted by Behram1 on November 15, 2005 8:23:30 pm
Re: # 531
Dear jang:
Please post those numbers so I can at least go and read it.
Thanks for your admiration and your salutation [behramji, i addressed several post to you. please find time to reply from your busy schedule.
yours admirigly]
Respectfully submitted,
Dear jang:
Please post those numbers so I can at least go and read it.
Thanks for your admiration and your salutation [behramji, i addressed several post to you. please find time to reply from your busy schedule.
yours admirigly]
Respectfully submitted,
#536 Posted by tahmed32 on November 15, 2005 6:08:36 pm
#535 the phrase ``but it isnt going to happen. `` should have read ``but it isnt going to happen anytime soon``. Over the next few decades (unless humanity manages to render this planet unlivable - a very real possibility given the explosion in science, technology, and economic and social change), I have no doubt that Pakistan and the rest of the world will be well along this path.
#535 Posted by tahmed32 on November 15, 2005 5:34:58 pm
behram #509 i fully agree the rule of law is essential for pakistan, as it is for any civilized society - and not just for the sake of a handful of senior citizen pakistanis seeking to come back. far, far more important is it essential for millions of pakistanis who dont have a choice to live in the US or in Pakistan; and for the ``junior citizens`` (the next generation).
i agree with you - there is much that needs to be fixed in pakistan. religion is a personal matter, and has no role in politics - and our constitution and laws must clearly reflect that. Basic human rights (habeas corpus, free speech, right to privacy and so on) must be protected at all costs. the military must stay out of politics. minimum standards of education and health care must be provided to all. the list goes on...
but it isnt going to happen.
and yet i love pakistan as much as you do. because it has something that no constitution or legal system can take away - and that is simply that it is home to those of us who grew up there. and nothing can take away those beautiful lifetime memories of one`s childhood and youth. they are part of us, and so we will pakistan always be a part of us.
i agree with you - there is much that needs to be fixed in pakistan. religion is a personal matter, and has no role in politics - and our constitution and laws must clearly reflect that. Basic human rights (habeas corpus, free speech, right to privacy and so on) must be protected at all costs. the military must stay out of politics. minimum standards of education and health care must be provided to all. the list goes on...
but it isnt going to happen.
and yet i love pakistan as much as you do. because it has something that no constitution or legal system can take away - and that is simply that it is home to those of us who grew up there. and nothing can take away those beautiful lifetime memories of one`s childhood and youth. they are part of us, and so we will pakistan always be a part of us.
#534 Posted by dost_mittar on November 15, 2005 4:52:05 pm
#533:
``So, when Ashoka attacked Kalinga or Multan, he was definitely an invader in the history of the subcontinent``
should read, ``So, when Ashoka attacked Kalinga or Multan, he was definitely an INTERNAL invader WITHIN the history of the subcontinent, just like the Scottish-English invasions``
``So, when Ashoka attacked Kalinga or Multan, he was definitely an invader in the history of the subcontinent``
should read, ``So, when Ashoka attacked Kalinga or Multan, he was definitely an INTERNAL invader WITHIN the history of the subcontinent, just like the Scottish-English invasions``
#533 Posted by dost_mittar on November 15, 2005 4:48:37 pm
Romair:
There are two dimensions to your question. One is that of who is an invader. This depends upon the context in which one is talking of the invasion. When the Scottish kings were fighting with the English kings, there were obviously invaders in each other`s eyes, but in the context of the British history, they were internal wars. Similarly, when Prithvi Raj attacked Jai Chand or Ranjit Singh attacked other Missils, he was an invader. So, when Ashoka attacked Kalinga or Multan, he was definitely an invader in the history of the subcontinent.
For Pakistanis who are trying to develop their own sense of history, you are perfectly entitled to regard any invasion from outside Pakistan to be an invader. But for those of us who regard the subcontinent as a single geographic and civilisational entity with tremendous diversity - and I do not want to get into the 101st round of whether or not the subcontinent is a civilisational entity, this is universally accepted as such and some jealous Pakistanis` complaint is not going to change anything - there is a clear distinction between invasions from outside the subcontinent and those within. Thus Alexander was an outside invasion as were the invasions of Tamurlane, Scythians, Huns, Arabs and Turks whereas Ashoka`s invasion of Kalinga was an internal aggresion.
The second aspect is the human quality of conquerors. All invaders are not equal. Alexander, Napolean, Chengez Khan and Hitler were all conquerors but people do not regard all of them in the same way. Alexander is so admired, especially in Pakistan, that people still name their children after him even though he was clearly an invader. I give below a description of Ashoka from an academic [Manoj Kumar Sinha*
Visiting Professor at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human
Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lund, Sweden, and Assistant Professor (on leave), at
the Indian Society of International Law, New Delhi.]
Ashoka declared that in the future he would conquer only by morality
or by Dhamma, which is a Prakrit word meaning right conduct, duty, religion,
law, social justice and responsibility. Dhamma was his all-encompassing principle.
29 Ashoka promulgated rock edicts which established the law of piety and
non-violence, the most famous of which was the 13th Edict30 because it highlights
his concern to institute the principle of non-violence:
“Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight
years after his coronation. One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one
hundred thousand were killed and many more died. After the Kalingas had been
conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the
Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Belovedof-
the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas. (…) Indeed,
Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that
take place when an unconquered country is conquered.”31
“I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons
may not consider making new conquests, or that if military conquests are
made, that they be done with forbearance and light punishment, or better still,
that they consider making conquest by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this
world and the next. May all their intense devotion be given to this which has a
result in this world and the next.”
In the 10th Rock Edict Ashoka stated plainly that he supported the doctrine
of Dhamma for happiness in the next world. He not only forsook violence,
but also spread his ideas beyond India.
There are two dimensions to your question. One is that of who is an invader. This depends upon the context in which one is talking of the invasion. When the Scottish kings were fighting with the English kings, there were obviously invaders in each other`s eyes, but in the context of the British history, they were internal wars. Similarly, when Prithvi Raj attacked Jai Chand or Ranjit Singh attacked other Missils, he was an invader. So, when Ashoka attacked Kalinga or Multan, he was definitely an invader in the history of the subcontinent.
For Pakistanis who are trying to develop their own sense of history, you are perfectly entitled to regard any invasion from outside Pakistan to be an invader. But for those of us who regard the subcontinent as a single geographic and civilisational entity with tremendous diversity - and I do not want to get into the 101st round of whether or not the subcontinent is a civilisational entity, this is universally accepted as such and some jealous Pakistanis` complaint is not going to change anything - there is a clear distinction between invasions from outside the subcontinent and those within. Thus Alexander was an outside invasion as were the invasions of Tamurlane, Scythians, Huns, Arabs and Turks whereas Ashoka`s invasion of Kalinga was an internal aggresion.
The second aspect is the human quality of conquerors. All invaders are not equal. Alexander, Napolean, Chengez Khan and Hitler were all conquerors but people do not regard all of them in the same way. Alexander is so admired, especially in Pakistan, that people still name their children after him even though he was clearly an invader. I give below a description of Ashoka from an academic [Manoj Kumar Sinha*
Visiting Professor at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human
Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lund, Sweden, and Assistant Professor (on leave), at
the Indian Society of International Law, New Delhi.]
Ashoka declared that in the future he would conquer only by morality
or by Dhamma, which is a Prakrit word meaning right conduct, duty, religion,
law, social justice and responsibility. Dhamma was his all-encompassing principle.
29 Ashoka promulgated rock edicts which established the law of piety and
non-violence, the most famous of which was the 13th Edict30 because it highlights
his concern to institute the principle of non-violence:
“Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight
years after his coronation. One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one
hundred thousand were killed and many more died. After the Kalingas had been
conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the
Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Belovedof-
the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas. (…) Indeed,
Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that
take place when an unconquered country is conquered.”31
“I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons
may not consider making new conquests, or that if military conquests are
made, that they be done with forbearance and light punishment, or better still,
that they consider making conquest by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this
world and the next. May all their intense devotion be given to this which has a
result in this world and the next.”
In the 10th Rock Edict Ashoka stated plainly that he supported the doctrine
of Dhamma for happiness in the next world. He not only forsook violence,
but also spread his ideas beyond India.
#532 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on November 15, 2005 3:57:25 pm
#531, Jang,
Kyon be - abhi tak miTthas ki khwahish jaari he? :)
Kyon be - abhi tak miTthas ki khwahish jaari he? :)
#531 Posted by jang on November 15, 2005 3:54:03 pm
behramji, i addressed several post to you. please find time to reply from your busy schedule.
yours admirigly
yours admirigly
#530 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on November 15, 2005 3:16:32 pm
#525, rsridhar {``Well said. You should also have asked Manto, our ``Jinnah specialist``, what he thought about the fact that Jinnah`s great idea of a seperate muslim nation founded to give the minorities a homeland left them as a greater minority in India. So, what was the purpose?
Shri Sridhar, :)
Exactlly! People keep calling Jinnah an evil person, and I vehmently disagree with that. At least during his meeting with Lord Mountbatten, Jinnah was definitely more in the stupid category than in the evil one.
Let`s just expand on the fallacy of his logic that you so correctly pointed out.
Muslims are a separate nation from Hindus
Muslims cannot live under the tyranny of Hindu rule
Muslims deserve a homeland of their own where they can rule themselves and follow Islam
Muslims demand Pakistan
Oh No, Mr. Mountbatten, what you are giving me is a ``moth eaten`` Pakistna, but I`ll take it.
One third of the Muslims will stay in India and they will be Indian citizens
Sikhs and Hindus in Punjab, Bengal, and Sindh can stay as good Paki citizens
I want to establish a modern secular state
Either I am dense or this old man was already senile. :)
Shri Sridhar, :)
Exactlly! People keep calling Jinnah an evil person, and I vehmently disagree with that. At least during his meeting with Lord Mountbatten, Jinnah was definitely more in the stupid category than in the evil one.
Let`s just expand on the fallacy of his logic that you so correctly pointed out.
Muslims are a separate nation from Hindus
Muslims cannot live under the tyranny of Hindu rule
Muslims deserve a homeland of their own where they can rule themselves and follow Islam
Muslims demand Pakistan
Oh No, Mr. Mountbatten, what you are giving me is a ``moth eaten`` Pakistna, but I`ll take it.
One third of the Muslims will stay in India and they will be Indian citizens
Sikhs and Hindus in Punjab, Bengal, and Sindh can stay as good Paki citizens
I want to establish a modern secular state
Either I am dense or this old man was already senile. :)
#529 Posted by rsridhar on November 15, 2005 2:42:49 pm
re: Manto`s post
(#484 by Mantolives on November 14, 2005 8:52pm PT
For the record...
Mahmud Ghaznavi and Muhammad Ghori are NOT my heroes. I detest them as much as I detest Mohandas Gandhi, )
I also need to go on record here and state that Stalin and Hitler are not my heros and i detest them as much as i detest Jinnah, Mushy boy, Ghazni, chengiz khan (did i miss out anybody?).
Ha, Now i feel better.
Sridhar
P.S: i am waiting for the day when Manto will grow up but i know that may never happen
(#484 by Mantolives on November 14, 2005 8:52pm PT
For the record...
Mahmud Ghaznavi and Muhammad Ghori are NOT my heroes. I detest them as much as I detest Mohandas Gandhi, )
I also need to go on record here and state that Stalin and Hitler are not my heros and i detest them as much as i detest Jinnah, Mushy boy, Ghazni, chengiz khan (did i miss out anybody?).
Ha, Now i feel better.
Sridhar
P.S: i am waiting for the day when Manto will grow up but i know that may never happen
#528 Posted by rsridhar on November 15, 2005 2:33:15 pm
re: Ghazni`s plunder of India
From the pages of the book: ``Medieval India under Mohammedan Rule, (A.D. 712-1764) by Stanley Lane-Poole; Haskell House, 1970``
(At Mahmud`s blockade the defenders `fell to the earth like sparrows before the hawk.` Immense stores of treasure and jewels, money and silver ingots, were laden upon camels, and a pavilion of silver and a canopy of Byzantine linen reared upon pillars of silver and gold were among the prizes of the Holy War. The booty was displayed in the court of the palace at Ghazni, `jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shining like sparks or iced wine, emeralds as it were sprigs of young myrtle, diamonds as big as pomegranates.` The eastern chroniclers tell of seventy million silver dirhams, and hundreds of thousands of pounds` weight of silver cups and vessels; and, with every allowance for exaggeration, the spoils must have been colossal. All the world flocked to Ghazni to gaze upon the incredible wealth of India.
Such rewards were incentives enough to carry on the pious work. Year after year Mahmud swept over the plains of Hindustan, capturing cities and castles, throwing down temples and idols, and earning his titles of `Victor` and `Idol-breaker,` Ghazi and Batshikan.)
(In the next two campaigns Lahore, Gwaliar, and Kalinjar surrendered to a conqueror who would take no denial, and in the winter of 1025-6 the sultan made his final march into Gujarat, crowned with the capture of Somnath, its costly temple and its wondrous god. There a hundred thousand pilgrims were wont to assemble, a thousand Brahmans served the temple and guarded its treasures, and hundreds of dancers and singers played before its gates. Within stood the famous linga, 1 a rude pillar-stone adorned with gems and lighted by jewelled candelabra which were reflected in the rich hangings, embroidered with precious stones like stars, that decked the shrine.)
(So long as this worshipful emblem stood inviolate, Mahmud could not rest from his idol-breaking, nor his treasury boast the finest gems in India. Hence his arduous march across the desert from Multan to Anhalwara, and on to the coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at last the famous fortress washed by the waves of the Arabian sea. Its ramparts swarmed with incredulous Brahmans, mocking the vain arrogance of the foreign infidels whom the god of Somnath would assuredly consume. The foreigners, nothing daunted, scaled the walls; fifty thousand Hindus suffered for their faith, and the sacred shrine was sacked to the joy of the true believers. The great stone was cast down, and its fragments carried off to grace the conqueror`s palace. The temple gates were set up, at Ghazni, 1 and a million pounds` worth of treasure rewarded the iconoclast. )
Author`s footnote:
1 As has often been pointed out, the legend in Firishta`s history that the priests tried to bribe Mahmud to spare the idol, and that he clove it in two with his sword, whereupon a vast hoard of jewels poured from its vitals, is manifestly absurd. The idol, as Sir W. W. Hunter observed, `was merely one of the twelve lingas or phallic emblems erected in various parts of India,` and could not be cut by a sword; though it is possible that a hiding-place was excavated in it...)
My observation:
That temple in Somnath was recently renovated and stands more resplendent than ever. Ghazni`s plunder was apparently a waste. The place from where he ruled (modern day Afghanistan) still lives in medieval times, trying to catch up with modernity. The nation that Ghazni plundered (viz India) is on a steady ecnomic march towards prosperity. How times change!
Sridhar
From the pages of the book: ``Medieval India under Mohammedan Rule, (A.D. 712-1764) by Stanley Lane-Poole; Haskell House, 1970``
(At Mahmud`s blockade the defenders `fell to the earth like sparrows before the hawk.` Immense stores of treasure and jewels, money and silver ingots, were laden upon camels, and a pavilion of silver and a canopy of Byzantine linen reared upon pillars of silver and gold were among the prizes of the Holy War. The booty was displayed in the court of the palace at Ghazni, `jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shining like sparks or iced wine, emeralds as it were sprigs of young myrtle, diamonds as big as pomegranates.` The eastern chroniclers tell of seventy million silver dirhams, and hundreds of thousands of pounds` weight of silver cups and vessels; and, with every allowance for exaggeration, the spoils must have been colossal. All the world flocked to Ghazni to gaze upon the incredible wealth of India.
Such rewards were incentives enough to carry on the pious work. Year after year Mahmud swept over the plains of Hindustan, capturing cities and castles, throwing down temples and idols, and earning his titles of `Victor` and `Idol-breaker,` Ghazi and Batshikan.)
(In the next two campaigns Lahore, Gwaliar, and Kalinjar surrendered to a conqueror who would take no denial, and in the winter of 1025-6 the sultan made his final march into Gujarat, crowned with the capture of Somnath, its costly temple and its wondrous god. There a hundred thousand pilgrims were wont to assemble, a thousand Brahmans served the temple and guarded its treasures, and hundreds of dancers and singers played before its gates. Within stood the famous linga, 1 a rude pillar-stone adorned with gems and lighted by jewelled candelabra which were reflected in the rich hangings, embroidered with precious stones like stars, that decked the shrine.)
(So long as this worshipful emblem stood inviolate, Mahmud could not rest from his idol-breaking, nor his treasury boast the finest gems in India. Hence his arduous march across the desert from Multan to Anhalwara, and on to the coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at last the famous fortress washed by the waves of the Arabian sea. Its ramparts swarmed with incredulous Brahmans, mocking the vain arrogance of the foreign infidels whom the god of Somnath would assuredly consume. The foreigners, nothing daunted, scaled the walls; fifty thousand Hindus suffered for their faith, and the sacred shrine was sacked to the joy of the true believers. The great stone was cast down, and its fragments carried off to grace the conqueror`s palace. The temple gates were set up, at Ghazni, 1 and a million pounds` worth of treasure rewarded the iconoclast. )
Author`s footnote:
1 As has often been pointed out, the legend in Firishta`s history that the priests tried to bribe Mahmud to spare the idol, and that he clove it in two with his sword, whereupon a vast hoard of jewels poured from its vitals, is manifestly absurd. The idol, as Sir W. W. Hunter observed, `was merely one of the twelve lingas or phallic emblems erected in various parts of India,` and could not be cut by a sword; though it is possible that a hiding-place was excavated in it...)
My observation:
That temple in Somnath was recently renovated and stands more resplendent than ever. Ghazni`s plunder was apparently a waste. The place from where he ruled (modern day Afghanistan) still lives in medieval times, trying to catch up with modernity. The nation that Ghazni plundered (viz India) is on a steady ecnomic march towards prosperity. How times change!
Sridhar
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- bulleya: zeejah #: "THIS one... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- tahmed32: pinku: So I assume... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- parthaab: Re: # 32 Madani, True,... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- nb: Too many points at... They Will Seal The
- majumdar: Kaal bhai, Now or Never... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- nkg: Re: # 133 Special provision... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- majumdar: Nkg moshai, What is wrong... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- nkg: Re: # 128 Dinaric... RSS is... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
