6 ms·

Tipu like his contemporary Islamic rulers carried out frequent massacres of Hindus. Perhaps because it was too common among the islamic rulers that it is often

Tipu like his contemporary Islamic rulers carried out frequent massacres of Hindus. Perhaps because it was too common among the islamic rulers that it is often not considered unique enough to Tipu. There has also been plenty of whitewashingg of both Islamic & colonial-christian history under a "secular independent India". But social media is starting to open up alternative voices, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLMjUk9utaU&t=75s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLMjUk9utaU&t=75s

pkd 5y ago
Claims about Tipu Sultan's "cruelty" come primarily from English "scholars" who were actually fighting against him. It was a well-known policy of the British to portray their enemies as tyrants to gather legitimacy for their warmongering. Any such claims should be taken with a massive dollop of salt. I'm surprised how many of these "alternative voices" reject western narratives about India but are all too happy to parrot colonial talking points about Muslims.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  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.
  - teleforce 5y ago
    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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty
    - kamaal 5y ago
      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.
    - naruvimama 5y ago
      You should read my comment carefully. I am talking about the 3 million hindus killed in Bangladesh in 1971 by Islamists. We have had a recent genocide of 300+ Hindus in Bangladesh as we speak during the recent durga pooja.
      - saimiam 5y ago
        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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide 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.
        naruvimama 5y ago
        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.
  - saimiam 5y ago
    > Islamic colonisation 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.
    - naruvimama 5y ago
      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.
- lazyninja987 5y ago
  We dont need english historians to show how psycopath tipu was. Tipu issued many decree's claiming how he converted lakhs of hindus, and describing in detail what he will do to people who didn't convert. In some cases, going into detail on how the non-believers will be striken down like moses struck the pharoahs. "I'm surprised how many of these "alternative voices" reject western narratives about India but are all too happy to parrot colonial talking points about Muslims." The same can be said about you, Indians dont talk trash about qutub shahi's, who are just & kind. But, when the topic of aurangazeb and tipu's cruelty comes up, gets triggered with out looking at evidence.

pkd 5y ago

Claims about Tipu Sultan's "cruelty" come primarily from English "scholars" who were actually fighting against him. It was a well-known policy of the British to portray their enemies as tyrants to gather legitimacy for their warmongering. Any such claims should be taken with a massive dollop of salt. I'm surprised how many of these "alternative voices" reject western narratives about India but are all too happy to parrot colonial talking points about Muslims.

naruvimama 5y ago
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.
- teleforce 5y ago
  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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty
  - kamaal 5y ago
    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.
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    You should read my comment carefully. I am talking about the 3 million hindus killed in Bangladesh in 1971 by Islamists. We have had a recent genocide of 300+ Hindus in Bangladesh as we speak during the recent durga pooja.
    - saimiam 5y ago
      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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide 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.
      - naruvimama 5y ago
        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.
- saimiam 5y ago
  > Islamic colonisation 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.
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    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.
lazyninja987 5y ago
We dont need english historians to show how psycopath tipu was. Tipu issued many decree's claiming how he converted lakhs of hindus, and describing in detail what he will do to people who didn't convert. In some cases, going into detail on how the non-believers will be striken down like moses struck the pharoahs. "I'm surprised how many of these "alternative voices" reject western narratives about India but are all too happy to parrot colonial talking points about Muslims." The same can be said about you, Indians dont talk trash about qutub shahi's, who are just & kind. But, when the topic of aurangazeb and tipu's cruelty comes up, gets triggered with out looking at evidence.