6 ms·

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

by 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.
      - naruvimama 5y ago
        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.
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    Two objections 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.
    - teleforce 5y ago
      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. [1]https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/colonizer https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization
      - 5y ago
- 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.

by pkd 5y ago

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.
    - naruvimama 5y ago
      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.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  Two objections 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.
  - teleforce 5y ago
    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. [1]https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/colonizer https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization
    - 5y ago
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.