Islamic colonisation is real and no less cruel that the European one.
Indian muslims are still largely colonised and therefore the partition of India and the massacre of millions of Hindus even as recently as 1971 in Bangladesh.
It is indeed sad to see that Indian muslims today continue to associate themselves with the islamic conquerors who had raped, killed and/or forced their ancestors to convert.
The whitewashing of Islamic tyranny in India is so obvious that even children do not accept it as it is taught in schools.
Please provide valid and reliable references for the alleged massacre of millions of Hindu.
Before Islam arrived at Mysore it was ruled by Chola dynasty [1]. This Chola dynasty cruelly attacked, murdered and conquered their South East Asian neighbours.
I think the parent's argument is more on the lines on whose politics he considers good and whose politics he considers evil.
This is just standard 'holier than thou' talk.
Every empire, nation or country ever established had to go through wars, that's just how it is. Because the existing political powers aren't exactly going welcome new political masters with roses and jasmine.
But when it's you waging wars it's for the good, when others do it, it's always evil of course.
1. The cholas did not force their language or culture or religion, these were already Hindu regions, with extensive trade with India. Some were allies and others rivals. This is simply not even comparable to colonization. They went to war over trade and reinstated the local heirs as kings.
2. The fact that you call the chollas cruel while you take offense to Islamic invaders who clearly destroyed 100s of thousands of temples and massacred millions of Hindus. This continues in modern times, in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Proves the point you are colonised.
Inspite of all the modern education the world still sees recruitment into Al queda, ISIS or Taliban.
It takes a heart of stone to defend the Islamic tyrants of the past.
Sorry to hit your nerve by mentioning 'cruel' Chola dynasty that you're compelled to reply to my same comments twice. To be honest only 'cruel' dynasty that can attacked, killed and plundered their fellow Hindu kingdoms just to install their own puppets.
I'm not sure you really understand the meaning of "colonization" that you're frequently using and dissing it [1],[2]. The British is world renowned colonizer and they performed the classic form of colonization by utilizing "divide and conquer" technique over foreign lands. Using this technique the obedient local and native rulers are maintained but the disobedient will be killed or outcast, and replaced by the new obedient rulers. These colonized kings and rulers were under complete influent of the colonizer and generally called the puppets. This is exactly what the Chola dynasty did to their fellow South East Asian neighbours unlike the Mysore or the Mughal dynasty. There is no record that the latter perform any excursion to the South East Asian neighbours apart from the peaceful trade. Please bear in mind that all of them occupied the same land albeit at different times. The 'cruel' Chola dysnasty is the classic colonizer and perhaps the British learnt their colonization technique from Chola because their modus operandi are very similar.
I'm still waiting for your credible massacres and genocides references especially performed by Tipu Sultan.
"This often involves the settlers dispossessing indigenous inhabitants, or instituting legal and other structures which systematically disadvantage them"
The Cholas did not do any of these. They only wanted to stop piracy and extortion which was making trade more risky. This was overall helpful to the economy of the whole region.
The Mughals imposed Jizya, imposed language, paid tributes to Afganistan. This was done as late as with Aurangazeb.
The Mopalla Hindu massacre was a continuation of Tipu's demographic change, forced conversion and raids on Hindus of the coorg in particular which went on for a period of more than 100 years by then.
Yes sure, they want to stop piracy and extortion to guarantee their trade activities. Exactly the same classic reasons given by the Dutch and British East India company to their respective government to intervene and colonize any strategic foreign land!
It seems you have cherry picked the definition that best suited your own skewed agenda. Please check the main definition from the dictionary (and also other parts of the Wikipedia), "a person who helps take control of an area or a country that is not their own, especially using force, and sends people from their own country to live there". Please check your history, Chola dynasty did sent their own people to these conquered foreign places and some of Chola descendents continued to rule several parts of South East Asian countries.
Mysore and Mughal dynasty are both from India subcontinent and according to some reputable historians that includes Afghanistan. Yes their ancestors are perhaps from somewhere else similar to Chola ruling class or upper caste who ancestors most probably from Aryan descendents originated from northern regions [1]. It just like saying now that cosmopolitan American including Irish, Chinese, Jewish, Scandinavian are all the US colonizer because their ancestors are from somewhere else eventhough they have lived there several generations for hundreds of years.
Genuinely asking you for a third time any reliable source of references regarding massacre done by Tipu Sultan, if not it's just hearsay and evil slander to systematically tarnish this Indian hero of independence, and shame on you.
[1]Tiruvalangadu Inscription States That Cholas Are Descendants of Aryan King Bharata:
"India that is Bharat" is prominent in our constitution. The name Bharat comes from the name Bharata.
I do not see a reason why I need to justify why Cholas who are very much Indian with Indian roots being my hero. Whereas Mughals are foreign invaders with a fundamentalist Islamist agenda with no roots to the country or allegiance to the people are villains.
If you feel that other way, perhaps that is why Pakistan was created.
Pakistan 99% muslim
Bangladesh 25%-30% muslim (1951) -> 8% muslim (2011)
Kashmir 77% muslim (1991) -> 99% muslim (in a span of 1 month)
Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS ......... the list goes on and on, this is not something from the past it is a continuing problem. This has existed since the 7th century, and seems to only get worse.
You might be from a religion of the book and perhaps that is why you are living by definitions from a dictionary, I am not.
The vast majority of the Tamil people who are today citizens of Malaysia went as bonded labourers during the British era.
Why do you hate the Cholas did they destroy your culture or people or make your ancestors into refugees.
I clearly hate the Mughals because they are destructive foreign invaders blinded by theological hate for non-believers especially idol worshipers, and this is a continuing problem within the country even after the partition.
While even one unnatural death is one too many, calling every riot a "genocide" devalues the term. If 300+ is genocide, I really hope you spoke up loud and clear when Hindu rioters killed 2000+ Muslims in Gujarat when our current Prime Minister was that state's chief minister.
Also, Wiki says that the Bangladesh liberation war led to the deaths of between 2-3 million people including Hindus. Not sure from where you got that 3 million Hindus were killed.
At this point, I feel you're just enjoying the attention you are getting on this comment thread by simply throwing around incendiary, fact free assertions.
Pakistani army and Islamic radicals in Bangladesh targeted two groups Hindus and the Intelectual class.
In total there were an estimated 2-3 million killed and at least 400000 Hindu women raped or taken as sex slaves.
Clearly the number of intellectuals would be a rounding error so one can safely use the upper bound of 3 million, I do not know if the lower bound of 2 million would make it less of a crime.
Even if you refute this clearly a Hindu population that accounted upto 25 to 30 % of the Bangladeshi population that has now been reduced to 8% is clearly something to ponder over.
300+ is Islamist in Bangladesh planned attack on Hindus is one sided.
Gujarat "riots" was started by a 300 strong Muslim mob that burnt alive 59 Hindu pilgrims. 20 muslim men including Maulanas were sentenced by the court for their premeditated crime. The Hindus too had a 2000+ casuality figure.
Clearly in both cases the perpetrators and the fault lies with radical Islamists.
Clearly underplaying the one sided attack on Hindus in the first case and blaming Hindus for the later, is both a symptom and the cause for radicalisation among the Muslims.
How does anyone refute opinions? I'm going to try any way.
"Colonization" occurs when a species or group invades an area and makes it their home while retaining their own distinctiveness. An ant colony is a great example of this. The ants of an ant colony will, forever, be distinguishable from other insects and fauna near their colony.
If I were to point you to an Indian, would you be able to tell if they are descendants of Muslim colonizers? For what it's worth, the Mughals are an Indian dynasty with foreign roots. It's like saying that the Marwaris who settled in South India are colonizers. They keep their language and marwari culture alive while integrating with their south indian neighbors...much like the early Mughals!
> Indian muslims are still largely colonised
I don't know what this means. Are you arguing that their minds are colonized while they go about their day farting, pooping, ordering Swiggy, eyeing neighborhood cuties, and filling petrol in their cars? If so, what does colonization of the mind mean? Are they beholden to some foreign power? Which power? Who specifically in that foreign power structure do they listen to? Does the same argument apply to Indian Catholics who are presumably beholden to the Roman Catholic Pope?
> Indian muslims today continue to associate themselves with the islamic conquerors who had raped, killed and/or forced their ancestors to convert.
Do upper caste Hindus continue to venerate their ancestors who were the ones oppressing their caste inferiors? Honestly, beyond a couple of generations, one seldom knows what the heck our ancestors were up to. All we know is that tradition says to respect our ancestors and so we do it - hindus, muslims, christians, sikhs, atheists alike. No one wants to speak ill of the dead.
> even children do not accept it as it is taught in schools
I don't believe even one child in the history of the Indian education system has independently come to the conclusion that Islamic tyranny has been whitewashed without a degree of brainwashing from her parents/social milieu. If you can name one such child whose insights I can independently verify, I will eat my words. Btw, some Youtube influencers rants about Islamic whitewashing and blanket announcements that "even" children don't believe it are not acceptable to me.
By your logic British colonization of India will also not hold.
Indian Muslims are the ones who created Pakistan, they continue to have separate civil laws that allows a man upto 4 wives. And if you are not aware what is labeled "Hindu law" was originally framed as common law by the British but only applied on Hindus, as the others would not accept it.
Indian Muslims continue to name their children after mass murderers of Hindus, people like Timur or Aurangazeb who had slaughtered millions.
As a child, and as an Indian from the south, my history text books well filled with Islamic kings and "Islamic" monuments but very little about the chollas or Vijayanagara or Pandiyas and Pallavas.
Unlike in the north where almost all ancient temples have been destroyed or converted into mosques or appropriated like the qutib minhar. In the south we still have the grand temples standing and we are aware of how much destruction the islamist must have wrought on their people.
> By your logic British colonization of India will also not hold.
Ummm, I said colonizers hold themselves separate from the population they colonize. Britishers never found a home in India ergo, they were colonizers, the Mughals were not.
> as the others would not accept it
Say Indian polity were exactly the way it is today except India was a muslim majority country while Hindus were a 20% minority. Would a typical Hindu accept the assurances of a muslim majority and agree to a civil code which was geared towards appeasing the sentiments of the average muslim?
For every question you are asking, just flip the question on its head and ask yourself if you, as a hindu, would agree to the terms of that question?
I really want to know this - do you personally know just one Muslim man or a woman? Have you been to their house and eaten their food? Have you watched them try to land jobs and date and have kids and live a normal, ordinary life?
If you have done all these things and you still find them "foreign" to your concept of Indianess, I'm truly sorry for you.
First I am not talking about an average Indian muslim. I am talking about Indian muslims as a group. The same community which has been carrying out ethnic cleansing in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The British brought in the common civil laws that was relabelled Hindu laws, it was a set of laws influenced by Christian values and perhaps furthest away from Hindu values.
It doesn't answer the question if muslim men legally allowed to have upto 4 wives is a sign of fundamentalism in the society.
Mughals imposed Jizya on the Hindus for almost all of their 700 or so years of reign. They enforced Persian which resulted in the creation of Urudu, which is still the state language in Pakistan even though as a mother tongue it is minor.
Almost all the Mughals including Akbar carried out Jihad against the Hindu population in some case raiding and beheading entire cities. Sawing alive a Sikh guru, and boiling alive another in oil, as punishment for refusing to convert. Clearly they did not see themselves as Indians, nor did they treat Hindus as their subjects.
When you are in denial you are both colonized as well as engaged in whitewashing tyrants.
India has been under Islamic & Christian colonisation for the last 1000 years, where the locally evolved cultures has been trampled on.
Somehow you believe a handful of dominant castes did more harm than the colonial tyrants who massacred entire cities. The British in fact turned the richest nation to a poster child of poverty.
Caste is a word that does not exist in any of the Indian languages, the word and the system were both imported from Europe.
Let us pull the caste card to "brownwash" Islamic & Christian tyranny of the past that is pretty well established around the world.
Indian muslims are still largely colonised and therefore the partition of India and the massacre of millions of Hindus even as recently as 1971 in Bangladesh.
It is indeed sad to see that Indian muslims today continue to associate themselves with the islamic conquerors who had raped, killed and/or forced their ancestors to convert.
The whitewashing of Islamic tyranny in India is so obvious that even children do not accept it as it is taught in schools.