2 ms·

Your [1] through [3] are absolutely true. Dont forget the Chutiyas. Of the three, [1] and [3] were covered well in our history class in standards 7 then again i

by srean 6y ago

Your [1] through [3] are absolutely true. Dont forget the Chutiyas. Of the three, [1] and [3] were covered well in our history class in standards 7 then again in 9 and 10. Palas of Bengal got a mention, again for obvious reasons. Theirs was perhaps the largest empire in India by area (significantly larger than say the area of Gupta empire at its peak, perhaps Maurya's too, not very sure of that). We had a pretty good History faculty in our high school in Kolkata and good history books. These were all in the curriculum, not side notes mentioned by the teachers. So all this conspiracy that you talk about, I dont buy that. Kolkata even has remnants of a ditch (now filled up and made into roads) that was dug to protect Bengal from the Marthas. In Bengali, the Maratha raiders and sackers were called Borgis and were bit of a terror. Borgis feature often in Bengali folk songs. The British helped fund much of the ditch digging, for obvious reasons. But this is a far cry from modern India being a victim of hardcore Islamists. That's quite ridiculous. Sorry to call that rightwing wishful thinking and propaganda out.

drieddust 6y ago
When I read history none of this was in our books. May be it got added now or may be Bengal have different books. On the subject of Maratha invasion of Bengal. Kings invading each other's territory is very different from carrying out raids to kill the infidels. Carrying out general massacre, destroying places of worship is unique to Islamic invasions.[1] [1] A Self-Study Course on Political Islam
- srean 6y ago
  > May be it got added now Far from it. This is from 1987. > is unique to Islamic invasions Far from it. Mongols, Christians, Huns ... I will run out of space if i have to keep mentioning all the ones that I know of. I think what you are talking about reflects poor history curriculum and teaching rather than conspiracy. Might it be a projection of a collective low self esteem felt by a class of people who got left behind economically and culturally
  - drieddust 6y ago
    > Far from it. This is from 1987. Debate on Maratha history is still going on[1] other chapters of history is yet to be opened and taught. > Far from it. Mongols, Christians, Huns ... I will run out of space if i have to keep mentioning all the ones that I know of. Mongols were pretty inclusive and tolerant towards religion until they converted to Islam[2] Hunas never succedded in invading India. I am not sure which history you have read. Last hun Mihirakula was defeated by Yashodharman and he too was a Shavite.[3] Christians represent same Abrahmic idea so yes they were also brutal towards other religions but not to same level.[4] > Might it be a projection of a collective low self esteem felt by a class of people who got left behind economically and culturally Are you sure I am culturally "left behind"? [1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Maratha-history-downplayed-in-CBSE-textbooks-BISM/articleshow/21989831.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Maratha-histor... [2] http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/history/history7.htm http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/history/history7.htm [3] Rajtargini by Kalhana [4] A Self-Study Course on Political Islam
    - srean 6y ago
      > Are you sure I am culturally "left behind"? Was not commenting you or Indian history (hence Huns and Mongols, the latter were warded off by the Delhi Sultanate, which Indian right wingers find hard to acknowledge) but the phenomena of rise of right wing pathos in the world. Most of the time it has arisen it has from a sense of being left behind, or 'stabbed in the back' narrative. In the Indian context I have seen right wing sympathies among those who feel uncool, among low self esteem men (the gender bias is quite surprising). This is not the only birthing factor, but from anecdotal evidence from my own surroundings, it matched many examples. > Carrying out general massacre, destroying places of worship > You mean Mongols did not do general massacre with and without destruction of places of worship prior to turning to Islam. If you believe so, that would be quite an unique belief.
      - drieddust 6y ago
        > You mean Mongols did not do general massacre Based on my understanding Mongols didn't kill people for their religious beliefs. They killed entire cities if the resisted which is very different from killing population to attain title of Gazi by killing infidels. I would be happy to learn more if you have other resources.

by srean 6y ago

drieddust 6y ago

When I read history none of this was in our books. May be it got added now or may be Bengal have different books. On the subject of Maratha invasion of Bengal. Kings invading each other's territory is very different from carrying out raids to kill the infidels. Carrying out general massacre, destroying places of worship is unique to Islamic invasions.[1] [1] A Self-Study Course on Political Islam

srean 6y ago
> May be it got added now Far from it. This is from 1987. > is unique to Islamic invasions Far from it. Mongols, Christians, Huns ... I will run out of space if i have to keep mentioning all the ones that I know of. I think what you are talking about reflects poor history curriculum and teaching rather than conspiracy. Might it be a projection of a collective low self esteem felt by a class of people who got left behind economically and culturally
- drieddust 6y ago
  > Far from it. This is from 1987. Debate on Maratha history is still going on[1] other chapters of history is yet to be opened and taught. > Far from it. Mongols, Christians, Huns ... I will run out of space if i have to keep mentioning all the ones that I know of. Mongols were pretty inclusive and tolerant towards religion until they converted to Islam[2] Hunas never succedded in invading India. I am not sure which history you have read. Last hun Mihirakula was defeated by Yashodharman and he too was a Shavite.[3] Christians represent same Abrahmic idea so yes they were also brutal towards other religions but not to same level.[4] > Might it be a projection of a collective low self esteem felt by a class of people who got left behind economically and culturally Are you sure I am culturally "left behind"? [1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Maratha-history-downplayed-in-CBSE-textbooks-BISM/articleshow/21989831.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Maratha-histor... [2] http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/history/history7.htm http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/history/history7.htm [3] Rajtargini by Kalhana [4] A Self-Study Course on Political Islam
  - srean 6y ago
    > Are you sure I am culturally "left behind"? Was not commenting you or Indian history (hence Huns and Mongols, the latter were warded off by the Delhi Sultanate, which Indian right wingers find hard to acknowledge) but the phenomena of rise of right wing pathos in the world. Most of the time it has arisen it has from a sense of being left behind, or 'stabbed in the back' narrative. In the Indian context I have seen right wing sympathies among those who feel uncool, among low self esteem men (the gender bias is quite surprising). This is not the only birthing factor, but from anecdotal evidence from my own surroundings, it matched many examples. > Carrying out general massacre, destroying places of worship > You mean Mongols did not do general massacre with and without destruction of places of worship prior to turning to Islam. If you believe so, that would be quite an unique belief.
    - drieddust 6y ago
      > You mean Mongols did not do general massacre Based on my understanding Mongols didn't kill people for their religious beliefs. They killed entire cities if the resisted which is very different from killing population to attain title of Gazi by killing infidels. I would be happy to learn more if you have other resources.