Print

[cricinfo]

The polemics emanating from the IPL affront to Pakistani cricketers again brings to the fore the confused morass that is the Indian psyche; a jumble of misplaced morality and mawkish sentimentalism that revels in sadomasochistic self doubt and translates into a gibberish that has no functional value.

The net result is a floundering nation unsure of how to confront the inimical forces that confront it. In simple terms, a country that is unable to make strong decisions and stick by it.

Rajasthan Royals' [ Images ] co-owner Shilpa Shetty [ Images ] unusually forthright response to the brouhaha that followed the non-selection of the Pakistani players was a breath of fresh air. She bluntly remarked: "People have to be a little more sensitive, a bit more mature. Let's not be hypocrites and let's not turn a blind eye to the already volatile situation.  …you must look at it pragmatically and see that we have had these people who are constantly threatening.

"It's not something we hold against the Pakistani players. We completely understand the situation but as franchise owners are we willing to take that risk? If something happens to the Pakistani players, the onus lies on us and who is going to take responsibility for a situation like that? When we said 'availability', we wanted complete assurance that those players would be available in the country and that we were going to be able to provide security for them."

At the outset the near unanimity of action of the IPL was praiseworthy. It was grounded in reality, made good business sense, accounted for security concerns and above all resonated with the national sentiment prevalent in the nation post 26/11.

Although the IPL refuted the charge of a premeditated conspiracy there was no denying the undercurrent of patriotic fervour. It was strong decision but subtle and hurt the enemy where it hurt most. And for once India [ Images ] revealed a depth to its character, an ability to stand up for itself, a new found confidence that clearly said: 'Don't toy with us'. But alas the satisfaction was short lived.

Soon notes of dissent surfaced with our honorable home minister and a Bollywood icon mouthing a namby-pamby view that was in line with India's perpetual guilt complex.

There was no need to be apologetic about the IPL stance. Yet there was Shah Rukh Khan [ Images ] decrying the decision not with a logical counterpoint but by singing paeans to Pakistan and invoking personal ties. He remorsefully exclaimed:" It (Pakistan) is a great neighbour to have. We are great neighbours, They are good neighbours. Let us love each other.
Let me be honest. My family is from Pakistan, my father was born there and his family is from there,"

Two glaring inconsistencies stand out in this remark. One, if Pakistan is really a great neighbour then I am Albert Einstein. Without mincing words let me say that Pakistan is a deadbeat nation that is nothing more than a drag on India's progress. The less we have to do with this nation the better.

The second objection concerns the merging of private and public domains. I have no issue with Shah Rukh Khan's personal empathy for Pakistan borne out of familial affiliations even if it cuts across hostile boundaries. But can a national icon cite family ties to influence the professional decisions of an India based organisation or to sway public opinion?

The home minister's response too was unnecessarily defensive with an uncalled for dose of self reproach. He dubbed the non-inclusion of Pakistani cricketers as a 'disservice to cricket and contended that 'these players were coming as individuals, it was not a Pakistan team.'

Another misperception that stems from a lack of pragmatic thinking. A perusal of the following excerpt (Saba Naqvi. It's Not Cricket. Outlook, January 25) reveals that these Pakistani players are not isolated individuals but members of a larger hate India club that is Pakistan.

'Consider this conversation that took place in a TV show titled 'A morning with Farah' on ATV, a Pakistan channel. Sohail Tanvir [ Images ], who helped the Rajasthan Royals win and got the highest number of wickets in the first IPL is being interviewed by another journalist while the glamorous hostess, Farah, looks on. Consider Tanvir's remark: 'Hinduon ki zahaniyat hi aisi hai (the Hindu nature is like that only)' the implication being that the Hindus have deliberately deceived and humiliated Pakistanis. The journalist responds with a remark about Indians being baniyas and says: 'bagal me chhuri/ muuh me Ram Ram' (they are ready to plunge a knife behind your back though they will keep saying Ram Ram). The gentleman with this shocking view of Indians in general and Hindus in particular then goes on about how India is tricking Pakistan out of hosting the World Cup next year.'

This vitriolic outpouring is shocking but what makes it even more despicable is the prime time prominence given to such Hindu/Indophobic venom. In comparison, it is hard to find such rabid talk from even the far right of the India's political spectrum and certainly not on national television. It is this stark difference between the two nations that needs to sink into the fuzzy minds of our peaceniks.

We, in India are quick to vilify those who propose a hard line approach to Pakistan that includes severing cricket ties by branding them as radical and uncivilised. We cannot mix cricket with politics is the oft quoted mantra. But what is so sacred about this dichotomy? Is it a directive derived from logic or common sense or an abstract feel good notion with no utility value?  And has continued cricketing ties mitigated Pakistan's terror shenanigans?

I would like to look at in another way. This is not about cricket and politics but cricket and humanity. I am passionate about cricket and love the game. But that is the point. Cricket is merely a game and must take second place to humane concepts.

Is it not barbaric that we choose to continue playing cricket with a people whose compatriots routinely massacre our innocent civilians? I find it uncouth when we walk over the dead bodies of the carnage of 26/11 and extend a 'loving' hand to Pakistan and Pakistanis? This suggests that we care little for the lives of our citizens and more for our image and entertainment.

This train of terror cannot go on. We must draw the line somewhere and it is here and now even if it means no cricket.

Vivek Gumaste

http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/feb/02/why-pakistan-can-never-be-a-great-neighbour.htm

[winningnow]

The issue is not just "'Hinduon ki zahaniyat hi aisi hai (the Hindu nature is like that only)' ", they say the same thing about Christians, Jews, Buddhists ..

The roots are in division of the world (traced to Quran and Mohammed's sayings) into  ..

Dar al-Islam = Land of Islam, Land of peace

Dar al-Harb = Land of war...a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam


A traditional Arabic saying attributed to Muhammad goes: "Unbelief is one community", or in other words, "infidels are of one nation", can be taken as expressing the view that distinctions between different types of non-Muslims are insignificant in relation to the overriding distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim

[12th_Man]

India has to be living in Utopia if it considers Pak can be a great neighbour.
My line of argument however may not be completely on WN's POV, but in addition we must bring the history of country, why they separated and what kind of activites they were involved after the state has an identity. Does the state of Pak realy needs list of terroists that are well protected in country. The state infact breeds and supports these(anti India) acitvites.

[flute]

The issue is not just "'Hinduon ki zahaniyat hi aisi hai (the Hindu nature is like that only)' ", they say the same thing about Christians, Jews, Buddhists ..

The roots are in division of the world (traced to Quran and Mohammed's sayings) into  ..

Dar al-Islam = Land of Islam, Land of peace

Dar al-Harb = Land of war...a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam


A traditional Arabic saying attributed to Muhammad goes: "Unbelief is one community", or in other words, "infidels are of one nation", can be taken as expressing the view that distinctions between different types of non-Muslims are insignificant in relation to the overriding distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim

Now Wiki is your source to learn about Islam?

Instead of pointing the finger at Islam, we need to realize what is happening in India since mughal times. A lot of invaders came to India, to loot, plunder etc., but within a generation, conqerors became  Indianized and acquired Indian values and in a lot fo cases indian religions too. But, in case of mughals, while India almost worked its magic with Akbar, Aurangzeb came along and rolled back everything and from then on, the battle is between the tolerant, sufi inspired Islam of Akbar,Dara Sikoh Vs Talibanised version of Aurangazeb.

A cursory look at their opinions regarding Dara Sikoh, Akbar and Aurangazeb will tell you their attitudes. Apart from appeasement and divisive politics of congress, Indian muslims are by and large free of trouble. Only thing they need is education and opportunities and some strong political will to take on the medeival fringe forces among them. This is entirely different from pakistanis. Sardar Patel ( first congress leader to give legitimacy to partition)  and other congress leaders gave in too easily to pakistan demand and the result is 50+ yrs of indotrination into Talibanism and Aurangazeb Islam, moving those regions far far away from Indian values.

I truly believe that a more tolerant and progressive Islam can come only from India, we have the population and the civilizational values to achieve it. No religion is constant and when it tries to be constant, it dies. Christianity adopted itself to even evolution, Islam will do it too and it will come from India. We have huge muslim populations, eventually, Islam's capital will have to move from those arab countries to India.

Idea of pakistan is a failed experiment. Small lil signs are already there, I know 2 pakistanis who claimed to be Indians at Atlantic city. Eventually Indian muslims can lead those pakistani muslims and not the other way around as most fear. India just have to play its cards smartly and know when to use stick and when to use carrot.

[winningnow]

The issue is not just "'Hinduon ki zahaniyat hi aisi hai (the Hindu nature is like that only)' ", they say the same thing about Christians, Jews, Buddhists ..

The roots are in division of the world (traced to Quran and Mohammed's sayings) into  ..

Dar al-Islam = Land of Islam, Land of peace

Dar al-Harb = Land of war...a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam


A traditional Arabic saying attributed to Muhammad goes: "Unbelief is one community", or in other words, "infidels are of one nation", can be taken as expressing the view that distinctions between different types of non-Muslims are insignificant in relation to the overriding distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim

Now Wiki is your source to learn about Islam?

Instead of pointing the finger at Islam, we need to realize what is happening in India since mughal times. A lot of invaders came to India, to loot, plunder etc., but within a generation, conqerors became  Indianized and acquired Indian values and in a lot fo cases indian religions too. But, in case of mughals, while India almost worked its magic with Akbar, Aurangzeb came along and rolled back everything and from then on, the battle is between the tolerant, sufi inspired Islam of Akbar,Dara Sikoh Vs Talibanised version of Aurangazeb.

A cursory look at their opinions regarding Dara Sikoh, Akbar and Aurangazeb will tell you their attitudes. Apart from appeasement and divisive politics of congress, Indian muslims are by and large free of trouble. Only thing they need is education and opportunities and some strong political will to take on the medeival fringe forces among them. This is entirely different from pakistanis. Sardar Patel ( first congress leader to give legitimacy to partition)  and other congress leaders gave in too easily to pakistan demand and the result is 50+ yrs of indotrination into Talibanism and Aurangazeb Islam, moving those regions far far away from Indian values.

I truly believe that a more tolerant and progressive Islam can come only from India, we have the population and the civilizational values to achieve it. No religion is constant and when it tries to be constant, it dies. Christianity adopted itself to even evolution, Islam will do it too and it will come from India. We have huge muslim populations, eventually, Islam's capital will have to move from those arab countries to India.

Idea of pakistan is a failed experiment. Small lil signs are already there, I know 2 pakistanis who claimed to be Indians at Atlantic city. Eventually Indian muslims can lead those pakistani muslims and not the other way around as most fear. India just have to play its cards smartly and know when to use stick and when to use carrot.

It is your prerogative to "hope"..

I would rather be safe than sorry.. the evidence against "hoping" is overwhelming from historical data points across the world.
--

Another "well-educated, well-meaning, should have been moderate" muslim ..

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6849614.html

So was Nidal Hassan of the Ft Hood massacre.

[flute]

The issue is not just "'Hinduon ki zahaniyat hi aisi hai (the Hindu nature is like that only)' ", they say the same thing about Christians, Jews, Buddhists ..

The roots are in division of the world (traced to Quran and Mohammed's sayings) into  ..

Dar al-Islam = Land of Islam, Land of peace

Dar al-Harb = Land of war...a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam


A traditional Arabic saying attributed to Muhammad goes: "Unbelief is one community", or in other words, "infidels are of one nation", can be taken as expressing the view that distinctions between different types of non-Muslims are insignificant in relation to the overriding distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim

Now Wiki is your source to learn about Islam?

Instead of pointing the finger at Islam, we need to realize what is happening in India since mughal times. A lot of invaders came to India, to loot, plunder etc., but within a generation, conqerors became  Indianized and acquired Indian values and in a lot fo cases indian religions too. But, in case of mughals, while India almost worked its magic with Akbar, Aurangzeb came along and rolled back everything and from then on, the battle is between the tolerant, sufi inspired Islam of Akbar,Dara Sikoh Vs Talibanised version of Aurangazeb.

A cursory look at their opinions regarding Dara Sikoh, Akbar and Aurangazeb will tell you their attitudes. Apart from appeasement and divisive politics of congress, Indian muslims are by and large free of trouble. Only thing they need is education and opportunities and some strong political will to take on the medeival fringe forces among them. This is entirely different from pakistanis. Sardar Patel ( first congress leader to give legitimacy to partition)  and other congress leaders gave in too easily to pakistan demand and the result is 50+ yrs of indotrination into Talibanism and Aurangazeb Islam, moving those regions far far away from Indian values.

I truly believe that a more tolerant and progressive Islam can come only from India, we have the population and the civilizational values to achieve it. No religion is constant and when it tries to be constant, it dies. Christianity adopted itself to even evolution, Islam will do it too and it will come from India. We have huge muslim populations, eventually, Islam's capital will have to move from those arab countries to India.

Idea of pakistan is a failed experiment. Small lil signs are already there, I know 2 pakistanis who claimed to be Indians at Atlantic city. Eventually Indian muslims can lead those pakistani muslims and not the other way around as most fear. India just have to play its cards smartly and know when to use stick and when to use carrot.

It is your prerogative to "hope"..

I would rather be safe than sorry.. the evidence against "hoping" is overwhelming from historical data points across the world.
--

Another "well-educated, well-meaning, should have been moderate" muslim ..

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6849614.html

So was Nidal Hassan of the Ft Hood massacre.

is that what you got from my post? hope? I was talking strategy, vision and self image for India..ah well.

Anyway, none of what I suggested says anything about being remotely soft on terror...anything to do with law and order or organized terror ( all forms including naxals, Raj thackrey types etc.) should be dealth with most ruthlessly and with prejudice ( with no second thoughts). Now, that has nothing to do with our attitudes towards Islam or how India should position itself and its muslim population in future. Both go hand in hand..not sure where you got your better safe than sorry theme...did your mind imagine it?  it happens when one has concrete, crystalised opinions about a religion.

[ruchir]

Flute:

Instead of pointing the finger at Islam, we need to realize what is happening in India since mughal times. A lot of invaders came to India, to loot, plunder etc., but within a generation, conqerors became  Indianized and acquired Indian values and in a lot fo cases indian religions too.

Can you explain the bold with examples of which Muslim invader became Indianized and acquired Indian values and religion? Also, in this particular context I would like to know your definition of "Indianized", "Indian values", and "Indian religions".

Apart from appeasement and divisive politics of congress, Indian muslims are by and large free of trouble.

Can you explain further what you mean by the bold part? Actually, I also want to know if you mean that Indian Muslims are not in trouble or that they don't create trouble?

Only thing they need is education and opportunities and some strong political will to take on the medeival fringe forces among them.

I'm sure your emphasis here is on education and opportunities. So, can you explain who is stopping Indian Muslims from getting non-madarsa education? Govt? People of other religion? Also can you explain how opportunities are kept away from deserving Muslims?

I truly believe that a more tolerant and progressive Islam can come only from India, we have the population and the civilizational values to achieve it. No religion is constant and when it tries to be constant, it dies. Christianity adopted itself to even evolution, Islam will do it too and it will come from India. We have huge muslim populations, eventually, Islam's capital will have to move from those arab countries to India.

I would contest here that India will find it very difficult to be the capital if Islam because it is not a Muslims country. Muslims of other declared Muslims countries will find it impossible to look at Indian Muslims as their leaders. Not because Indian Muslims are any less, but because ego will come into play. Ego, that will say 'how can we listen to Muslims who live among kafirs, and follow them?'. Typical human tendency that is extremely hard to override.

There are probably more Catholic Christians in US than in Vatican, still Vatican is the capital for Catholics, not US. Think why?

Idea of pakistan is a failed experiment. Small lil signs are already there,

Completely agree.

Eventually Indian muslims can lead those pakistani muslims and not the other way around as most fear. India just have to play its cards smartly and know when to use stick and when to use carrot.

Again, I think it is impossible that PAK Muslims will ever look up to Indian Muslims. IMO it has been ingrained in their DNA that PAK was create solely because Muslims could not live in India with Hindus, and those Muslims who do live in India do so because they have given in to Hindus. Not sure what carrot and stick game India can play with them, maybe you can explain.

[flute]

Can you explain the bold with examples of which Muslim invader became Indianized and acquired Indian values and religion? Also, in this particular context I would like to know your definition of "Indianized", "Indian values", and "Indian religions".

where did I say that muslim invaders got indianized? but, if you look at history, many invaders ( examples kushans, various chinese invaders who came after mauryan dynasty, one muslim ruler in AP who almost became a hindu when Lord Rama appeared before him to pay a prisoner's debt aka Bhakta Ramadas  etc. Akbar, the greatest emperor of India was completely indianized if not hindu) got indianized within a generation..India has that magic as long as the invaders do not come with an extremist, violent, religious fervour.

Islam confounded India for a long time, for we never faced anything like that earlier, all invaders came to her land in search of wealth and it was easy to assimilate them but Islam took a while for us to figure out but we were almost successful in changing Islam in India to more tolerant sufi based faith during Akbar only to be rolled back by Aurangazeb.

Indianized means, calling India as their mother land and loving it as birthplace and also acquiring the famous Indian way of thinking regarding things spiritual prominently marked by tolerance to various ways of reaching God, respect for ancient indian thoughts and customs, wisdom, humane civilized attitude that only indians were capable of during those dark medeival ages etc.

Can you explain further what you mean by the bold part? Actually, I also want to know if you mean that Indian Muslims are not in trouble or that they don't create trouble?

I'm sure your emphasis here is on education and opportunities. So, can you explain who is stopping Indian Muslims from getting non-madarsa education? Govt? People of other religion? Also can you explain how opportunities are kept away from deserving Muslims?

we cannot pin the blame on any under developed area/region/community etc. and say who is stopping them from developing. There is no end to such type of logic. As a whole, we have to think fo ways to pull up such communities/regions into development.

I would contest here that India will find it very difficult to be the capital if Islam because it is not a Muslims country. Muslims of other declared Muslims countries will find it impossible to look at Indian Muslims as their leaders. Not because Indian Muslims are any less, but because ego will come into play. Ego, that will say 'how can we listen to Muslims who live among kafirs, and follow them?'. Typical human tendency that is extremely hard to override.

There are probably more Catholic Christians in US than in Vatican, still Vatican is the capital for Catholics, not US. Think why?

well they have vested interest in keeping the power in vatican's hand..do you think vatican will still have so much power and influence in a world order not dominated by western powers?

ego or no ego, in a world order in which India is a strong power at the top 3 or 4, nobody can stop Indian muslims from influencing the world Islam. That is where strategic thinking of India comes into picture..thinking say 50+ yrs ahead.

Again, I think it is impossible that PAK Muslims will ever look up to Indian Muslims. IMO it has been ingrained in their DNA that PAK was create solely because Muslims could not live in India with Hindus, and those Muslims who do live in India do so because they have given in to Hindus. Not sure what carrot and stick game India can play with them, maybe you can explain.

again, you are thinking based on current situation and I am talking about how we need to shape matters in future. Your thinking is still assuming existence of pakistan while I am talking about a scenario the idea of pakistan dies away..that is where disintegrating pakistan comes into picture. Our biggest stumbling block is pak army. A balkanized pakistan means, a balkanized pak army, no? even if this army is still there, atleast they if they are not holding onto NWFP, POK, sindh etc., what is stopping India from influencing those regions just like the way if we such goodwill in afghanistan?

[ruchir]

where did I say that muslim invaders got indianized?

Of course, you did. Here is a quote from your previous comment:

A lot of invaders came to India, to loot, plunder etc., but within a generation, conqerors became  Indianized and acquired Indian values and in a lot fo cases indian religions too.

What would anyone reading the above quote, take away from it?

but, if you look at history, many invaders ( examples kushans, various chinese invaders who came after mauryan dynasty, one muslim ruler in AP who almost became a hindu when Lord Rama appeared before him to pay a prisoner's debt aka Bhakta Ramadas  etc. Akbar, the greatest emperor of India was completely indianized if not hindu) got indianized within a generation..India has that magic as long as the invaders do not come with an extremist, violent, religious fervour.

If India really had any kind of magic on Muslim invaders then why would every single Muslim invader indulge in looting, raping, and destruction of temples? Where would that magic go? History is proof that every single Muslim invader, who came to India from elsewhere, looted, killed, raped, converted Indians, apart from destroying temples and building mosques over them, and destroying sacred ancient texts. You would have to live in a utopia to assume that invaders got indianized and adopted Indian culture. For a Muslim, that's not possible because of the very definition of the religion he is following. I don't think a couple examples out of hundred prove that invaders got indianized or adopted Indian values.

Going back to the bold part, you say something that IMO is very naive. You say "as long as invaders do not come with an extremist, violent, religious fervor". I fail to understand your POV, but why else do you think any invader would invade another country? Is there example in Indian history where any invader invaded India for any reason other than "extremism, or violence, or religious fervor"? Any example?

I feel the whole premise that you have built for invaders is on wrong foundation.

Islam confounded India for a long time, for we never faced anything like that earlier, all invaders came to her land in search of wealth and it was easy to assimilate them but Islam took a while for us to figure out but we were almost successful in changing Islam in India to more tolerant sufi based faith during Akbar only to be rolled back by Aurangazeb.

You deftly forgot to add violence to wealth. How did you think these Muslim invaders planned to attain wealth if not through violence? What do you think violence comes from if not extremism? I don't think there was any assimilation of invaders to Indian values. Rather they tried to convert Indians to their religion and force Indians to adept to their culture, their values. Where do you think Muslims in India came from if not conversion? What do you think religious conversion is if not religious fervor? So I see all the points that I underlined above happening under the invaders, and you seem to think that many invaders did not come for these reasons. I think there is a disconnect between your image of invaders and reality.

Indianized means, calling India as their mother land and loving it as birthplace and also acquiring the famous Indian way of thinking regarding things spiritual prominently marked by tolerance to various ways of reaching God, respect for ancient indian thoughts and customs, wisdom, humane civilized attitude that only indians were capable of during those dark medeival ages etc.

India as motherland - Now why would any Muslim invader invade India and then call it it's mother land? Was the invader born in India? If not, using what logic can he call it his motherland? Again, a utopian thought that is disconnected from reality.

Loving it as birthplace - Any example where an Muslim invader loved India as it's birthplace?

Indian thinking regarding spirituality - Which Muslim invader adopted Indian spiritual thinking? History tells us that every single invader indulged in religious conversions through violence, murder and rape. Is that Indian spirituality? I don't think so.

Respect for ancient Indian thought, customs, wisdom etc. - Muslim invaders actually destroyed temples and built mosques over them. They killed and raped hindus in order to convert them to Islam. If you think this is showing respect then, my friend, we live on different planets and will forever disagree.

we cannot pin the blame on any under developed area/region/community etc. and say who is stopping them from developing. There is no end to such type of logic. As a whole, we have to think fo ways to pull up such communities/regions into development.

It would be prudent if you gave your logic in this regard instead of finding fault in mine. My logic in asking the question - who is stopping Indian Muslims to get their kids educated in regular schools instead of madrasa - is very simple. I want to know the answer. You say we should concentrate on getting them education and opportunity. I say I agree with you. Yes. I agree with you. But then I also want to know, is some one stopping Indian Muslims from getting regular education?

There are poor Hindus and there are poor Muslims. If poor Hindus send their kids to school, they send to regular schools. If poor Muslims send their kids to school, many send to madrasa. I want to know why? And what can anyone do to ensure that these kids get real education, other than what people are already doing -- pleading that these parents send their kids to regular schools. Some ideas from you would be welcome.

well they have vested interest in keeping the power in vatican's hand..do you think vatican will still have so much power and influence in a world order not dominated by western powers?

We can only speculate on something that has not happened yet.

ego or no ego, in a world order in which India is a strong power at the top 3 or 4, nobody can stop Indian muslims from influencing the world Islam. That is where strategic thinking of India comes into picture..thinking say 50+ yrs ahead.

Back to your utopian thinking again, eh?    Think about today's world, not the world that is 50 years ahead. No one has traveled 50 years in future in a time machine and seen that India will be a strong world power. So I would rather keep my thoughts to today's real world rather than an imaginary world of 50 years in future.

Do you think India can be a power of any kind under Singh/Sonia rule? I don't think so.

again, you are thinking based on current situation and I am talking about how we need to shape matters in future. Your thinking is still assuming existence of pakistan while I am talking about a scenario the idea of pakistan dies away..that is where disintegrating pakistan comes into picture. Our biggest stumbling block is pak army. A balkanized pakistan means, a balkanized pak army, no? even if this army is still there, atleast they if they are not holding onto NWFP, POK, sindh etc., what is stopping India from influencing those regions just like the way if we such goodwill in afghanistan?

Yes, I am thinking based on current situation. I am not a day dreamer. I can't see a future where PAK dies away without destroying India. Maybe you can dream that dream but I can't. So whatever you are thinking is something I can't agree with, so we will have to disagree here.

[flute]

Of course, you did. Here is a quote from your previous comment:

ruchir, you seem to be under rthe impression that muslims are the only invaders into India..this inspite of my clarifying by mentionning kushans and other hordes after mauryans...brush up your history my friend

[flute]

Back to your utopian thinking again, eh?    Think about today's world, not the world that is 50 years ahead. No one has traveled 50 years in future in a time machine and seen that India will be a strong world power. So I would rather keep my thoughts to today's real world rather than an imaginary world of 50 years in future.

Do you think India can be a power of any kind under Singh/Sonia rule? I don't think so.

well, there is fire fighting and there is long term plan..you may not have hope, but if there is no plan or strategy for future, we will still be saddled by the same problems 50yrs from now. When you plan with strategy, there is atleast a chance that things will change..right from my first post, that is exactly what I been saying, it is not for today, it is about vision and strategy for the country for future. how long can we live on knee jerk reactions from terror attack to terror attack? 20 yrs from now, for all we know, these terror attacks might become a distant reality just like punjab militancy. In fact, the whole problem with Indian leadership is, we operate without any long term vision, every other govt. comes in and starts a aimless, rhetoric filled dialogue with pak and then there is an attack, we shut shop, get a bit upset and then the cycle goes on....instead what I am suggesting is, have a long term goal of dismantling pakistan completely ( because it is a failed idea, subcontinent muslims did not benefit from it..) and plan your moves around that..it is really not that big an impossibility for India if we work towards it with purpose and vision.


also, if you think 50yrs from now, to assume that pak will no longer exist is such an impossible thought, then, as you said, we are both on different planets..no point continuing this discussion.

PS: we are in fact not that far in our opinions, but I think it is just that you are not able to differentiate between immediate and future planning. Just like a corporation, a country too, when it sees itself in a certain position, certain sphere, certain geostrategic area in certain time, with sustained foreign policy, economic policy and soft power over a point of time, things can be changed for the better. That is how all major countries in the world operate.  Do you think China is not thinking about its energy security 50yrs from now? do you think US is not already planning for its position 50 yrs from now? they will have long term plan and will keep recalibrating it every now and then.

[ruchir]

ruchir, you seem to be under rthe impression that muslims are the only invaders into India..this inspite of my clarifying by mentionning kushans and other hordes after mauryans...brush up your history my friend

Okay...

Aryans -- Did they assimilate to the India of then or did they change the entire fabric of India? If history is to be believed then Aryans pushed the Indians (Dravidans) down south and established their civilization here. So, technically the north India of today is India established by Aryans. I don't see any magic playing out here, any assimilation to Indian values. Rather I would say Hindu religion might as well have been created by Aryans and we are following them.

Greeks -- Did Greeks assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

Scythians -- Did Scythians assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

Huns -- Did Huns assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

Mongols -- Did Mongols assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

Muslims -- Did Muslims assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

Europeans -- Did Europeans assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

[flute]

Aryans -- Did they assimilate to the India of then or did they change the entire fabric of India? If history is to be believed then Aryans pushed the Indians (Dravidans) down south and established their civilization here. So, technically the north India of today is India established by Aryans. I don't see any magic playing out here, any assimilation to Indian values. Rather I would say Hindu religion might as well have been created by Aryans and we are following them.

Sorry to say this Ruchir, I cannot believe your take on this part of India's history is pretty much struck in 1920s. A simple 20 minute due diligence using google will completely change your perceptions of aryans and will also help you shed out dated ideas like hinduism was created by aryans etc. For starters, please realize not even hard core Aryan theory supporters in India like Romila Thapar of JNU( supposed to be leftist and so very anti-hindu for sangh parivar folks) support INVASION anymore. AIT ( aryan invasion theory) no longer holds water, Romila Thapar now supports Aryan Immigration/ migration theory aka waves of aryans coming in over few centuries to assimilate and acquire/absorb existing indian systems,wisdom,knowledge ( now even this migration theory is purely theory since there is no strong conclusive evidence. There are many who contradict this) . For example, do you know that there are several elements in mauryan dynasty period that were directly traced back to Indus valley civilization? don't you know the strong possibility of Shiva worship in indus valley? don't you know that some elements of present day farming around gaghar river are strikingly similar to indus valley farming? how can all above be possible without assimilation?

Greeks -- Did Greeks assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

I know you are not really curious rather you already made up your mind. But, just to indulge you, the answer is YES.

Scythians -- Did Scythians assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

I know you are not really curious rather you already made up your mind. But, just to indulge you, the answer is YES.

Huns -- Did Huns assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

I know you are not really curious rather you already made up your mind. But, just to indulge you, the answer is YES.

Mongols -- Did Mongols assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

I know you are not really curious rather you already made up your mind. But, just to indulge you, the answer is YES.

Muslims -- Did Muslims assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

I know you are not really curious rather you already made up your mind. I explained my take on muslim invaders already. While on one hand, hindu kingdoms in south joined forces and formed the famed Vijayanagara empire, on the other hand, within one genration Akbar who was born in India and loved India, became the greatest emperor ever of India and made it the wealthiest country of that period. All this after adopting and tolerating many indian values.

Europeans -- Did Europeans assimilate to Indian values? Just curious...

I know you are not really curious rather you already made up your mind. But, just to indulge you, the answer is NO, because imperialism is a new concept that India faced for the first time. When rulers sit thousands of miles away, how can India work her magic, instead she gave birth to such great personalities like Gandhi who looked the europeans in the eye and told them, "you are welcome to stay in India..but as Indians..if not, please return". In the end, they chose to return back to their country.

[vincent]

Interesting debate. Here are my two pennies:

- Aryans : Yes, they did assimilate and created Vedas and other great works. If you see the BBC DVD "Strory of India", even there they mention that the old Indus Valley civilization (Dravidians) had already disappeared when the Aryans arrived (as immigrants) due to some natural causes such as draught. The "Dravidians" had migrated perhaps elsewhere already.

- Greeks: One of the greatest empires in Indian history is that of Kushans which flourished under Kanishka. They were greeks who assimilated with the Indian culture more than anyone else and created their own civilization (Gandhara) which was a mixture of Indian (Budhist) and Greek. The Bamian statues (destroyed by Taliban) were one small symbol of the same.

- Muslims: The coastal region of southern India had Muslim immigrants/traders coming from Yemen and Saudi Arabia of today. They were peaceful people. They stettled in the south-west region. They spread their religion through peaceful means and through inter-marriage. They integrated very well with Indian culture and customs which you can still see today in Kerala and Western Karnataka. They did not import a new language like Urdu. They speak Malayalam, Kannada and Konkani just as other locals do.

- Europeans : The ones in India did not but many Europeans - not just the colonialists- especially the Germans took back home a lot of knowledge about Indian culture and history in general. Just as a tiny example : It was the German jesuits who researched India's past glory espeically in maths and sciences and published in Europe. This is when India did not have its own records. For example : how many of you know that Pythagoras went to India to study the work of Bhaskar (?, may be someone else) on the squares and triangles and got his own inspiration for the so-called "Pythagoras Theorem".
T

[flute]

Interesting debate. Here are my two pennies:

- Aryans : Yes, they did assimilate and created Vedas and other great works. If you see the BBC DVD "Strory of India", even there they mention that the old Indus Valley civilization (Dravidians) had already disappeared when the Aryans arrived (as immigrants) due to some natural causes such as draught. The "Dravidians" had migrated perhaps elsewhere already.

- Greeks: One of the greatest empires in Indian history is that of Kushans which flourished under Kanishka. They were greeks who assimilated with the Indian culture more than anyone else and created their own civilization (Gandhara) which was a mixture of Indian (Budhist) and Greek. The Bamian statues (destroyed by Taliban) were one small symbol of the same.

- Muslims: The coastal region of southern India had Muslim immigrants/traders coming from Yemen and Saudi Arabia of today. They were peaceful people. They stettled in the south-west region. They spread their religion through peaceful means and through inter-marriage. They integrated very well with Indian culture and customs which you can still see today in Kerala and Western Karnataka. They did not import a new language like Urdu. They speak Malayalam, Kannada and Konkani just as other locals do.

- Europeans : The ones in India did not but many Europeans - not just the colonialists- especially the Germans took back home a lot of knowledge about Indian culture and history in general. Just as a tiny example : It was the German jesuits who researched India's past glory espeically in maths and sciences and published in Europe. This is when India did not have its own records. For example : how many of you know that Pythagoras went to India to study the work of Bhaskar (?, may be someone else) on the squares and triangles and got his own inspiration for the so-called "Pythagoras Theorem".
T

good post Vincent.


actually Pythagoras theorem itself was not something new for India..Indian astronomers knew about this and the value of pi atleast a few centuries before pythagoras.

[ʋeːd̪ɑːnt̪ə]

Muslims: The coastal region of southern India had Muslim immigrants/traders coming from Yemen and Saudi Arabia of today. They were peaceful people. They stettled in the south-west region. They spread their religion through peaceful means and through inter-marriage. They integrated very well with Indian culture and customs which you can still see today in Kerala and Western Karnataka. They did not import a new language like Urdu. They speak Malayalam, Kannada and Konkani just as other locals do.

Are you referring to the Bohras? They came to India from Yemen after the Sunnis there slaughtered them because they were Ismaili. Yes, they have been good natured, tolerant people through the ages and integrated well enough - arguably because they saw the absolute wrath of Islam squarely directed at them for their variant beliefs. Interestingly for this forum, the cricket writer/editor Mudar Patherya is a Bohra. I remember someone lamenting recently that the Bohras who were a reasonably forward looking community had started developing a hardline streak.

[vincent]

Muslims: The coastal region of southern India had Muslim immigrants/traders coming from Yemen and Saudi Arabia of today. They were peaceful people. They stettled in the south-west region. They spread their religion through peaceful means and through inter-marriage. They integrated very well with Indian culture and customs which you can still see today in Kerala and Western Karnataka. They did not import a new language like Urdu. They speak Malayalam, Kannada and Konkani just as other locals do.

Are you referring to the Bohras? They came to India from Yemen after the Sunnis there slaughtered them because they were Ismaili. Yes, they have been good natured, tolerant people through the ages and integrated well enough - arguably because they saw the absolute wrath of Islam squarely directed at them for their variant beliefs. Interestingly for this forum, the cricket writer/editor Mudar Patherya is a Bohra. I remember someone lamenting recently that the Bohras who were a reasonably forward looking community had started developing a hardline streak.

No. Bohras came primarily to Gujarat I think. The one's in the south came already in the 7th Century AD. They are "regular" Sunnis. They are called Mappilas in Kerala and Bearys in Karnataka.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beary
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappila

[ʋeːd̪ɑːnt̪ə]

Muslims: The coastal region of southern India had Muslim immigrants/traders coming from Yemen and Saudi Arabia of today. They were peaceful people. They stettled in the south-west region. They spread their religion through peaceful means and through inter-marriage. They integrated very well with Indian culture and customs which you can still see today in Kerala and Western Karnataka. They did not import a new language like Urdu. They speak Malayalam, Kannada and Konkani just as other locals do.

Are you referring to the Bohras? They came to India from Yemen after the Sunnis there slaughtered them because they were Ismaili. Yes, they have been good natured, tolerant people through the ages and integrated well enough - arguably because they saw the absolute wrath of Islam squarely directed at them for their variant beliefs. Interestingly for this forum, the cricket writer/editor Mudar Patherya is a Bohra. I remember someone lamenting recently that the Bohras who were a reasonably forward looking community had started developing a hardline streak.

No. Bohras came primarily to Gujarat I think. The one's in the south came already in the 7th Century AD. They are "regular" Sunnis. They are called Mappilas in Kerala and Bearys in Karnataka.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beary
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappila

Yes, Bohras came to Gujarat from Yemen I believe. I assumed you were referring to them because they have been a peaceful people who integrated well. I disagree that the integration of the Moplas (Mappila refers to the same I guess) or their general outlook was anything laudable. Here is an older post of mine that describes how there was a massive slaughter of innocent Hindus by the Moplas because they believed the British had helped overthrow the caliphate in Turkey in 1920.
http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php/topic,16684.msg220603.html#msg220603

Annie Besant wrote a strong letter to Gandhi on this carnage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappila_Rebellion

"Annie Besant stated: "They Moplahs murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything. Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India."[4]

[flute]

Interesting debate. Here are my two pennies:

- Aryans : Yes, they did assimilate and created Vedas and other great works. If you see the BBC DVD "Strory of India", even there they mention that the old Indus Valley civilization (Dravidians) had already disappeared when the Aryans arrived (as immigrants) due to some natural causes such as draught. The "Dravidians" had migrated perhaps elsewhere already.

Vincent, bolded part above is conjecture not history...most of this belief that indus valley civilization belongs to dravidians is based on the presence of a dravidian language (brahui)  in some regions of pakistan. It is now acknowledged fact that Brahui came into those regions from central India around 1000AD and is not native to those regions in 1500BC as was earlier conjectured.

Above is not to reject the idea that indus is dravidian, but rather rejection of the thinking that IT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT that indus is dravidian. It is amazing but horse holds key to a complete understanding of ancient indian history. It is full of riddles and contradictions. Astronomical data points to much older dates for vedas than the supposed aryan migration but absence of horse rules out vedas preceding indus civilization.

[vincent]

Muslims: The coastal region of southern India had Muslim immigrants/traders coming from Yemen and Saudi Arabia of today. They were peaceful people. They stettled in the south-west region. They spread their religion through peaceful means and through inter-marriage. They integrated very well with Indian culture and customs which you can still see today in Kerala and Western Karnataka. They did not import a new language like Urdu. They speak Malayalam, Kannada and Konkani just as other locals do.

Are you referring to the Bohras? They came to India from Yemen after the Sunnis there slaughtered them because they were Ismaili. Yes, they have been good natured, tolerant people through the ages and integrated well enough - arguably because they saw the absolute wrath of Islam squarely directed at them for their variant beliefs. Interestingly for this forum, the cricket writer/editor Mudar Patherya is a Bohra. I remember someone lamenting recently that the Bohras who were a reasonably forward looking community had started developing a hardline streak.

No. Bohras came primarily to Gujarat I think. The one's in the south came already in the 7th Century AD. They are "regular" Sunnis. They are called Mappilas in Kerala and Bearys in Karnataka.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beary
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappila

Yes, Bohras came to Gujarat from Yemen I believe. I assumed you were referring to them because they have been a peaceful people who integrated well. I disagree that the integration of the Moplas (Mappila refers to the same I guess) or their general outlook was anything laudable. Here is an older post of mine that describes how there was a massive slaughter of innocent Hindus by the Moplas because they believed the British had helped overthrow the caliphate in Turkey in 1920.
http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php/topic,16684.msg220603.html#msg220603

Annie Besant wrote a strong letter to Gandhi on this carnage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappila_Rebellion

"Annie Besant stated: "They Moplahs murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything. Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India."[4]

May be so. But this was 20th Century. I was talking about, within the context of the debate, how these Muslims came as early as 7th Century (long before probably they started conquering North India) and intgrated peacefully with the local population for centuries.

The situation in the 20th century and also today is quite different for various reasons.

[vincent]

Interesting debate. Here are my two pennies:

- Aryans : Yes, they did assimilate and created Vedas and other great works. If you see the BBC DVD "Strory of India", even there they mention that the old Indus Valley civilization (Dravidians) had already disappeared when the Aryans arrived (as immigrants) due to some natural causes such as draught. The "Dravidians" had migrated perhaps elsewhere already.

Vincent, bolded part above is conjecture not history...most of this belief that indus valley civilization belongs to dravidians is based on the presence of a dravidian language (brahui)  in some regions of pakistan. It is now acknowledged fact that Brahui came into those regions from central India around 1000AD and is not native to those regions in 1500BC as was earlier conjectured.

Above is not to reject the idea that indus is dravidian, but rather rejection of the thinking that IT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT that indus is dravidian. It is amazing but horse holds key to a complete understanding of ancient indian history. It is full of riddles and contradictions. Astronomical data points to much older dates for vedas than the supposed aryan migration but absence of horse rules out vedas preceding indus civilization.

I agree that there are many unanswered questions. Another question would be for example who were Saraswatians. Were they Aryans or Dravidians? Did they flourish during the Indus Valley civilization? etc,etc.

[ruchir]

Flute -- If I were to go by google and nothing else there would be no need for a discussion. I can find tons of articles to support any side I would take.

This is for Flute and Vincent, both:

Aryans - You guys think Aryans assimilated with Indian culture because of vedas, we can find farming similarities between India of then and Indus valley... I am saying you are reading this all backward. Where is the proof that Aryans actually adopted anything that was going on in India at that time? When you say Shiva, can you prove that people of that India actually prayed to Shiva? Is it too hard to believe that Aryans actually forced Sanskrit language, which was not a language spoken in that India? Is it too hard to believe that whatever gods and farming procedures that you think Aryans adopted from Indians, were actually their own and Indians of that time were forced to adopt them? I can't see any reason to believe that all this happened because Aryans assimilated with Indians. I think this happened because Aryans forced themselves on Indians.

Flute, since you asked me to google about Aryans, I did and this is what I found:
**
Aryans, or more specifically Indo-Aryans, make their first notable appearance in history around 2000-1500 BC as invaders of Northern India. The Sanskrit Rig Veda, a collection of religious texts still revered by modern Hindus, records (often enigmatically) their gradual subjugation of the dark-skinned inhabitants, the Dasyus: e.g. "Indra [=Norse Thor, Celtic Taranis] has torn open the fortresses of the Dasyus, which in their wombs hid the black people. He created land and water for Manu [=Aryan man]"; "lower than all besides, hast thou, O Indra, cast down the Dasyus, abject tribes of Dasas"; "after slaying the Dasyus, let Indra with his white friends win land, let him win the sun and water"; "Indra subdued the Dasyu color and drove it into hiding." With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, O Indra,
Thou, far-famed, hast overthrown the twice ten kings ...
Thou goest from fight to fight, intrepidly
Destroying castle after castle here with strength. (RV 1.53)

The Aryans were remarkably expansionist, and almost everywhere they went they conquered and subjugated the indigenous peoples, imposing their languages and (to varying degrees) their religious beliefs on the natives, and receiving in turn contributions from the peoples whom they conquered. Aryan invasions -- or more accurately, a long sequence of different invasions by speakers of Indo-European languages -- swept across Old Europe beginning as early as the fourth millennium BC, and over time the conquerors and the conquered melded into specific peoples with distinctive languages. Most of the contemporary inhabitants of Europe, along with their respective early national cultures, are the result of interaction between successive waves of Aryan invaders and culture of the particular White people that they conquered and with whom they later intermarried, and as a result almost all modern European languages are members of the Western branch of the IE family tree.
**

Greeks, Scythians, Huns, Mongols - Could you guys give me any example of which of these Invaders assimilated with Indian culture? The key word here is Invader.

Muslims - Again, you are confusing between off-springs of the Invaders with invaders themselves. Invader is some one who comes from out side and invades your country. The comment that Flute wrote in the beginning was that Muslim invaders assimilated with Indians, adopted it's culture. Can you name one Muslims invader, key word again is invader, who assimilated with Indian culture? You guys seems to be confusing off-springs like Akbar and other Muslim merchants with invaders. An off-spring is not an invader. If you born in a land, you look at it differently (even though you may rule it) than a person who has invaded it. Also, merchants are not invaders, so they can not be put into that category.

---

Look, the discussion on this thread was about why PAK (a Muslim country) can not be a good neighbor to India. The discussion then drifted toward Muslims in India and how they assimilated. A comment was made that India had some sort of a magic that influenced invaders to assimilate with the Indian culture. So I am asking, which INVADER assimilated with Indian culture? I think in order to keep your point on top, you are deliberately confusing invaders with merchants and born-in-India off-springs of invaders and what not. Please don't do that. Since we are talking about invaders, let us stick to that. Tell me which invader assimilated.

Flute, I haven't made up my mind. Rather I think you are deliberately moving away from your original words.

[kban1]

Ruchir, this above googled result is endemic of Western interpretation of early Indian history starting from max Mueller whose own timeline interpretations of Indus were strongly guided by his strong Christian beliefs.

Aryan stems from the word "Arya" in Sanskrit -- which was used to refer to a learned or noble man. In max Mueller and other euro centric translations, it became Aryan or "superior being" thereby laying the foundation for the association of race (the Nordic race) with Aryan.

The below excerpt from Wiki (and again, its from wiki because I did not have the time to pull up more extensive reasearch that corroborates this) tells how race came to be associated with Aryan and how Nordic / Thor races came to be associated with this theory.

I do believe Wiki has the origin of the word Arya in Sanskrit  alittle different from how I read it.

Anyways, here is the excerpt:

Aryan (IPA: /ˈɛɹiən/) is an English language loanword denoting variously

in historical or dated usage,
the Indo-Iranian languages and their speakers, viz. the Iranian and Indo-Aryan peoples
the Indo-European languages more generally and their speakers,

in contemporary usage,
Among the Hindu/Indian nationalists, the Hindu/Indian people (Aryan derives from the Sanskrit word Arya)[1]
in colloquial English informed by Nazi racism, persons corresponding to the "Nordic", "blond-haired, blue-eyed" physical ideal of Nazi Germany[n 1]
within US white supremacy, the "white race".
The "Aryan race" taken to correspond to the original speakers of Indo-European languages and their present day descendants.[3]


As an adaptation of the Latin Arianus, referring to Iran, 'Aryan' has "long been in English language use".[4] Its history as a loan word began in the late 1700s, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ā́rya- to refer to speaker of North Indian languages.[4]. When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 1800s, the word 'Aryan' came to refer to the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.[5]

Then, in the 1830s, based on the erroneous theory that words like "Aryan" could also be found in European languages, the term "Aryan" came to be used as the term for the Indo-European language group, and by extension, the speakers of those languages. In the 19th century, "language" was still considered a property of "ethnicity", and thus the speakers of the Indo-European languages came to be the so-called "Aryan race", as contradistinguished from the so-called "Semitic race". By the late 19th century, the notions of an "Aryan race" became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians).

This "master race" ideal engendered both the "Aryanization" programs of Nazi Germany, in which the classification of people as "Aryan" and "non-Aryan" was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews.[6][n 2] By the end of World War II, the word 'Aryan' had become firmly associated with the racial theories and atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.

In colloquial modern English it is typically used to signify the Nordic racial ideal promoted by the Nazis. As the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states at the beginning of its definition, "Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India."[2][7]

In present-day India, the original ethno-linguistic signifier has been mostly lost, the denotation having been semantically replaced by other, secondary, meanings. In Iran, the original self-identifier lives on in ethnic names like "Alani", "Ir", and in the name of Iran itself.[8] In present-day academia, the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European" have made most uses of the term 'Aryan' obsolete, and 'Aryan' is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term "Indo-Aryan" to represent (speakers of) North Indian languages. Notions of an "Aryan race" only survive in the context of fascist nationalism, in which nationhood is defined by ancestry.

[kban1]

Here is some more:

In India, under the British Empire, the British rulers also used the idea of a distinct Aryan race in order to ally British power with the Indian caste system. It was widely claimed that the Aryans were white people who had invaded India in ancient times,[15] subordinating the darker skinned native Dravidian peoples, who were pushed to the south. Thus the foundation of Hinduism was ascribed to northern invaders who had established themselves as the dominant castes, and who were supposed to have created the sophisticated Vedic texts.

Much of these theories were simply conjecture fueled by European imperialism. This styling of an Aryan invasion by British colonial fantasies of racial supremacy lies at the origin of the fact that all discussion of historical Indo-Aryan migrations or Aryan and Dravidian races remains highly controversial in India to this day, and does continue to affect political and religious debate. Some Dravidians, and supporters of the Dalit movement, most commonly Tamils, claim that the worship of Shiva is a distinct Dravidian religion going back to the Indus Civilization,[16] to be distinguished from Brahminical "Aryan" Hinduism. In contrast, the Indian nationalist Hindutva movement argues that no Aryan invasion or migration ever occurred, asserting that Vedic beliefs emerged from the Indus Valley Civilisation,[17] which pre-dated the supposed advent of the Indo-Aryans in India, and is identified as a likely candidate for a Proto-Dravidian culture.

Some Indians were also influenced by the debate about the Aryan race. The Indian nationalist V. D. Savarkar believed in the theory that an "Aryan race" migrated to India,[18] but he didn't find much value in a racialized interpretation of the "Aryan race".[19] Some Indian nationalists supported the British version of the theory because it gave them the prestige of common descent with the ruling British class.[20]

Genetic studies
A recent genetic study in Andhra Pradesh state of India found that the upper caste Hindus were closer relatives to Eastern-Europeans than to Hindus from lower castes. [21] However, a study conducted by the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in 2009 (in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT) analyzed half a million genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 ethnic groups from 13 states in India across multiple caste groups.[22] The study asserts, based on the impossibility of identifying any genetic indicators across caste lines, that castes in South Asia grew out of traditional tribal organizations during the formation of Indian society, and was not the product of any Aryan invasion and "subjugation" of Dravidian people.[23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

[Cernunnos]

Where is the proof that Aryans actually adopted anything that was going on in India at that time?

What about the presence of the swastika in the indus valley?

When you say Shiva, can you prove that people of that India actually prayed to Shiva?

The pashupati seal?

O Indra, cast down the Dasyus, abject tribes of Dasas"; "after slaying the Dasyus, let Indra with his white friends win land, let him win the sun and water";

What has been translated as "white friends" is actually sakhibhih svitnyebhih . It could also mean "shining friends" (svit also means bright in Sanskrit- in Ukranian svitlyy means light, in Slovak svetlý means bright, svitania means dawn, etc.). The "friends" here refers to the maruts who are invoked along with Indra in each of the preceding stanzas "May Indra, girt by Maruts, be our succour" (RV 1.100.1-17). Marut literally means "the flashing and shining ones" and are armed with lightning and thunderbolts and golden weapons - so "shining friends" seems more apt!

It is all a matter of interpretation, and those with a twisted political motive can easily tweak a few words to give it a racial meaning.

[flute]

Look, the discussion on this thread was about why PAK (a Muslim country) can not be a good neighbor to India. The discussion then drifted toward Muslims in India and how they assimilated. A comment was made that India had some sort of a magic that influenced invaders to assimilate with the Indian culture. So I am asking, which INVADER assimilated with Indian culture? I think in order to keep your point on top, you are deliberately confusing invaders with merchants and born-in-India off-springs of invaders and what not. Please don't do that. Since we are talking about invaders, let us stick to that. Tell me which invader assimilated.

Flute, I haven't made up my mind. Rather I think you are deliberately moving away from your original words.

Ruchir, calm down and please understand this is a very interesting debate for me, but this can continue ONLY if you give me the courtesy of assuming honesty of opinion on my part. Atleast for me, this is not a competition to be won with you. consider the below original quote from me with which all this started.

Instead of pointing the finger at Islam, we need to realize what is happening in India since mughal times. A lot of invaders came to India, to loot, plunder etc., but within a generation, conqerors became  Indianized and acquired Indian values and in a lot fo cases indian religions too. But, in case of mughals, while India almost worked its magic with Akbar, Aurangzeb came along and rolled back everything and from then on, the battle is between the tolerant, sufi inspired Islam of Akbar,Dara Sikoh Vs Talibanised version of Aurangazeb.

I think it is the Indian ethos which essentially accepts and recognizes multiple ways of life which allowed our civilization to survive. There are many many civilizations which are entirely wiped out in the face of invaders but INDIA absorbs things from outside while still retaining a lot of her own character. This is what I call India's magic. Also, this is not some new theory of mine, this is a famous and legendary quality of India.

Islam confounded India for a long time, for we never faced anything like that earlier, all invaders came to her land in search of wealth and it was easy to assimilate them but Islam took a while for us to figure out but we were almost successful in changing Islam in India to more tolerant sufi based faith during Akbar only to be rolled back by Aurangazeb.

you seem to be more concerned about islamic invaders and you seem to have misunderstood my earlier quote about invaders coming in with an extremist, religious fervour. What I wanted to convey was that only Islamic invaders came with that barbaric, religious fervour, all other invaders simply wanted to conquer land and riches. There was no religion involved. There was no intention of spreading their faith with earlier invaders.  Islam & christianity are more difficult to assimilate because spreading their faith is an integral part of their faith, and this leads of tension and conflict.

[kban1]

The Myth of the Aryan Invasion

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

[flute]

Flute -- If I were to go by google and nothing else there would be no need for a discussion. I can find tons of articles to support any side I would take.

Ruchir babu, again you are jumping to conclusions. I asked you to google to update your knowledge of history since clearly your take on ancient indian history is stuck in 1920s. You are holding opinions which are now bunkum. No eminent historian of present day holds these black dasyus nonsense, no eminent historian of present day holds this dravidians pushed to south nonsense. That whole "Indra stands accused of mass murder" nonsense from 1920 is no longer accepted by anyone. It is now proven beyond doubt that there is no evidence of burning down of indus cities. There is no evidence to suggest that indus civilization was destroyed by aryans.

I briefly explained these things to you and then asked you to do your due diligence using google. Please understand one thing. THERE IS NO DEBATE if you try to expand this whole discussion into simply a dispute of established history. I WILL NOT INDULGE you. You pulled this trick on me earlier. What you seem to do is, first say something totally against established history and when I point it out, you ask for details, links etc. When I provide the same, you simply ask 'where is the proof'? and try to put the onus of proof on me. History is an established field of study my friend and I do not intend to engage in an excuse called debate to try to prove some established historical points.

Also, if you wish to dispute some part of history however well established, the onus is on you to come up with some logic, knowledge, analysis to butress your point. Simply asking "where is the proof" is not going to get you anywhere and all that does is keep you in your ill-informed bliss.

I am saying you are reading this all backward. Where is the proof that Aryans actually adopted anything that was going on in India at that time? When you say Shiva, can you prove that people of that India actually prayed to Shiva? Is it too hard to believe that Aryans actually forced Sanskrit language, which was not a language spoken in that India? Is it too hard to believe that whatever gods and farming procedures that you think Aryans adopted from Indians, were actually their own and Indians of that time were forced to adopt them? I can't see any reason to believe that all this happened because Aryans assimilated with Indians. I think this happened because Aryans forced themselves on Indians.

where is the proof eh? plz don't assume that historians are stupid fools that they will jump to conclusions just like that. It is not about aryans adopting something, it is about having that continuity of culture and civilization all the way thru pre indus days.

also, please don't make one basic mistake every layman to history seem to make and that is assuming/equating indo-aryan and dravidian with race. Indo-aryan and dravidian relates to language and not race.

Flute, since you asked me to google about Aryans, I did and this is what I found:

Ruchir, are you trying to be a smart ass here? is this how you always use google? take the first hit and believe it? are did you specifically look for something which fits your 1920s opinions and then post it here?
I also asked you to do due diligence with google, not simply google. if you did your due diligence and are you still holding on to your previous opinions, then we simply have to agree to disagree. ( of course I will also go away with doubts regarding your google skills  )

I made my point quite clear above regardign aryans and dravidians, if you wish to dispute it, the onus is on you to provide me with links, proofs etc. to disprove me. 

[flute]

The Myth of the Aryan Invasion

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

kban, usually quoting frawley with established scholars on indology will get you anywhere. While much of 1920s knowledge is BS regarding aryans, we also have to be careful in not ignoring the fact there is a sustained attempt from hindu right wing forces to somehow prove things the other way. There is a whole joke about a paper published by these right wing parties about how they found horse remains at indus sites. Their attempt was to somehow prove that indus belongs to people from vedas.


 This has now unfortunately became a game between right wing and left wing in India.

[ʋeːd̪ɑːnt̪ə]

Can you prove what came first to the Indian sub-continent: horse or horse sh*t.

[kban1]

The Myth of the Aryan Invasion

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

kban, usually quoting frawley with established scholars on indology will get you anywhere. While much of 1920s knowledge is BS regarding aryans, we also have to be careful in not ignoring the fact there is a sustained attempt from hindu right wing forces to somehow prove things the other way. There is a whole joke about a paper published by these right wing parties about how they found horse remains at indus sites. Their attempt was to somehow prove that indus belongs to people from vedas.


 This has now unfortunately became a game between right wing and left wing in India.

I agree

but I dont think I am trying to say Indus belonged to the people with vedas vs dravidians etc

There is research that does indicate that the so called aryan vs Dravidian divide is non existent or much marginalized  than what is popularly acknowledged. That it is entirely possible that both sects or subsects existed at the same time without one being the aggressor and one the subordinate.

[ruchir]

Flute, Pitamah, Cern -- Thanks for the info on Aryans. It is through such discussion that we get educated.

Flute - A little needling gets more information out. Moreover, if you are saying something, is it out of place to ask you to back it up with some facts? Why should I simply believe your words or historian's words? Can't they make mistakes? Unless I can see that I am being proven wrong, I will continue to believe that I'm correct.... right? That's why I was asking for some sort of backup to your comments. Now that I have seen some information, I stand educated on Aryans, and I am glad for that.

[flute]

Flute, Pitamah, Cern -- Thanks for the info on Aryans. It is through such discussion that we get educated.

Flute - A little needling gets more information out. Moreover, if you are saying something, is it out of place to ask you to back it up with some facts? Why should I simply believe your words or historian's words? Can't they make mistakes? Unless I can see that I am being proven wrong, I will continue to believe that I'm correct.... right? That's why I was asking for some sort of backup to your comments. Now that I have seen some information, I stand educated on Aryans, and I am glad for that.

I am glad you are now informed..but

Unless I can see that I am being proven wrong, I will continue to believe that I'm correct.... right?

doesn't work my friend, you and I are not historians and to hold on to a belief unless someone comes along and proves you wrong is crazy.  Personally, I spend quite a bit of time pouring over these things and there are quite a few things in ancient Indian history which are hazy and ambiguous (there is almost a 1000yr hole in Indian history during which nobody knows for sure what happened except conjecture and imagination) but still we cannot simply say what we want and expect people to disprove it. It works the other way around, if you say something, you have to prove it and that is when it becomes history, if not, it is imagination.

[ruchir]

Unless I can see that I am being proven wrong, I will continue to believe that I'm correct.... right?

doesn't work my friend, you and I are not historians and to hold on to a belief unless someone comes along and proves you wrong is crazy.  Personally, I spend quite a bit of time pouring over these things and there are quite a few things in ancient Indian history which are hazy and ambiguous (there is almost a 1000yr hole in Indian history during which nobody knows for sure what happened except conjecture and imagination) but still we cannot simply say what we want and expect people to disprove it. It works the other way around, if you say something, you have to prove it and that is when it becomes history, if not, it is imagination.

Disagree. What I'm saying is until someone proves me wrong, I will keep believing that my knowledge is correct.

For example - I may believe that earth is flat. I will continue to believe this to be true until someone comes along and shows me that earth is round.

That's what I'm talking about. I didn't just say what I wanted to say. I was making point based on my extent of knowledge. When you guys showed me otherwise, I accepted that I was wrong. You or I don't make history. Going by strict definition, History is an account of a past era. Whether it is believable or not depends on proofs and an individual's belief.

That's why to me Jesus is as much of mythology as Ram is. 

[flute]

Unless I can see that I am being proven wrong, I will continue to believe that I'm correct.... right?

doesn't work my friend, you and I are not historians and to hold on to a belief unless someone comes along and proves you wrong is crazy.  Personally, I spend quite a bit of time pouring over these things and there are quite a few things in ancient Indian history which are hazy and ambiguous (there is almost a 1000yr hole in Indian history during which nobody knows for sure what happened except conjecture and imagination) but still we cannot simply say what we want and expect people to disprove it. It works the other way around, if you say something, you have to prove it and that is when it becomes history, if not, it is imagination.

Disagree. What I'm saying is until someone proves me wrong, I will keep believing that my knowledge is correct.

For example - I may believe that earth is flat. I will continue to believe this to be true until someone comes along and shows me that earth is round.

That's what I'm talking about. I didn't just say what I wanted to say. I was making point based on my extent of knowledge. When you guys showed me otherwise, I accepted that I was wrong. You or I don't make history. Going by strict definition, History is an account of a past era. Whether it is believable or not depends on proofs and an individual's belief.

That's why to me Jesus is as much of mythology as Ram is. 

above works if your lexicon includes "I don't know" when someone asks you about something you are not aware of, it will also work if you are holding onto some belief based on some previous input/book reading etc. But holding onto a belief just because it fits your world view or forming an opinion and defending it without basic due diligence is crazy IMO.

In study of history, there is no "to me Ram is not mythology" has zero value. As things stand now, for whatever reasons, Jesus is a historic figure while there is simply no such linguistic or archealogical evidence for Sri Rama. You can hold on to a belief as part of your regious belief but to assume or pretend it to be history doesn't make sense.

Personally, I too believe that Ramayana is based on true life story but it is just belief & intuition not backed by any historic evidence as of now. After all even King Ashoka ( a more recent historic figure) was completely forgotten until 1920s, a Sri Ram who was more ancient cannot possibly leave any archealogical evidence.

[ruchir]

above works if your lexicon includes "I don't know" when someone asks you about something you are not aware of, it will also work if you are holding onto some belief based on some previous input/book reading etc. But holding onto a belief just because it fits your world view or forming an opinion and defending it without basic due diligence is crazy IMO.

Babu... I said above that I was wrong and am pleased to be educated. Didn't I? So that should tell you that I don't have the habit of clinging to my beliefs simply because they fit my world view. What more do I have to do?

In study of history, there is no "to me Ram is not mythology" has zero value. As things stand now, for whatever reasons, Jesus is a historic figure while there is simply no such linguistic or archealogical evidence for Sri Rama. You can hold on to a belief as part of your regious belief but to assume or pretend it to be history doesn't make sense.

Look at your own quote in bold-red above, and think about what you are saying with a calm mind.

You are saying "for whatever reasons...". Why are you saying "whatever" reasons? Do you have concrete reasons to believe that Jesus is a certified historical figure beyond any reasonable doubt? If not, why do you believe what others say but can't prove when it comes to Jesus?

Then you say that since there is no "linguistic or archealogical evidence" to prove existence of Ram, you believe Ram is mythological. My question - Is there enough linguistic and archeological evidence to prove Jesus as historical figure?

I apply same logic of history to both figures but you seem to apply different logic of history. I know we had this discussion in another thread some time ago so I will leave this here.

Personally, I too believe that Ramayana is based on true life story but it is just belief & intuition not backed by any historic evidence as of now. After all even King Ashoka ( a more recent historic figure) was completely forgotten until 1920s, a Sri Ram who was more ancient cannot possibly leave any archealogical evidence.

Agree, that there is hardly any archeological evidence to prove existence of Ram. But my question yet again - is there any archeological evidence to prove existence of Jesus? I keep asking this question again and again because earlier you had argued that Jesus is a historical figure but Ram isn't. So, I want to apply the exact same set of parameters to both figures and see what the result is.

[flute]

Agree, that there is hardly any archeological evidence to prove existence of Ram. But my question yet again - is there any archeological evidence to prove existence of Jesus? I keep asking this question again and again because earlier you had argued that Jesus is a historical figure but Ram isn't. So, I want to apply the exact same set of parameters to both figures and see what the result is.

ruchir, we went over this earlier and I did explain to you that jesus is historic figure according to historians because of various archeological and linguistic evidence. if you have problems with that, do your due diligence and if you are still not satisfied, take it up with historians. If you wish to convince me otherwise, atleast come up with your own analysis of the evidence presented by historians and build your argument based on objective research. So far you seem to be simply saying that jesus is not a historic figure without any objective argument to back it up.

If you believe that jesus is not a historic figure and if it is simply a statement without any argument to back it up, I have nothing to respond to. Onus is on you to come with a detailed analysis of the evidence presented by historians to disagree with them. Until then, I will have zero value for any such statements.

Statements are dime a dozen if there is no analysis to back it up with.

I too can tell you that big bang theory is nonsense or  Einstein's theory of relativity is BS or that the sun rises in the west.

BUT, will it make any sense if I do not provide reasoning for the same? Will the onus be now on you to disprove me or is it on me to build my argument?

[ruchir]

if you have problems with that, do your due diligence and if you are still not satisfied, take it up with historians. If you wish to convince me otherwise, atleast come up with your own analysis of the evidence presented by historians and build your argument based on objective research. So far you seem to be simply saying that jesus is not a historic figure without any objective argument to back it up.

If you believe that jesus is not a historic figure and if it is simply a statement without any argument to back it up, I have nothing to respond to. Onus is on you to come with a detailed analysis of the evidence presented by historians to disagree with them. Until then, I will have zero value for any such statements.

Statements are dime a dozen if there is no analysis to back it up with.

Sir ji...

It is easy to say "take it up with historians"... You know it is impossible for me to do that. I have no access to them. I do have access to you via this DG.

You say the onus is on me to come with a detailed analysis. I want to ask you  - a detailed analysis of what? How can I prove non-existence of something that did not exist?

Let us say, for example, that there is a discussion on existence of Dinosaurs on earth in year 2010. I argue that they don't exist, you argue that they do exist. You say that the onus is on me to prove that they don't exist. Do you seriously think I can do that, except saying that there is no proof of their existence? Isn't it up to you to provide proof of their existence that is acceptable beyond any doubt?

If the discussion is about existence or non-existence of something, then the onus is always on the person who says that ABC exists. You can only prove the existence of something. What proof can be provided to prove that something does not exist? Just think about it. How can I provide any proof or analysis to support an argument that a non-existent thing really does not exist?

I remember the old thread. I also remember that you did not provide any linguistic or archeological evidence of existence of Jesus that was in any way different from proofs provided for existence of Ram. That's why I keep asking that if same parameters are applied to both and results are same, how can you say one is historic and other is mythological?


For the record -- In this whole argument of existence or non-existence of Jesus and Ram, I am not even saying that none of them ever existed. If fact, I am saying both of them existed and walked the earth. My objection is that why do people say Jesus is historical and Ram is mythological, when there is no shred of archeological evidence, that is acceptable beyond any doubt, that shows that Jesus ever existed. When it comes to linguistic evidence, if you think there is enough evidence to show existence of Jesus, then there is also enough similar evidence out there to show existence of Ram. That's my whole point.

I am not saying sun rises from west, or that Einstein is more intelligent than Flute.

[flute]

if you have problems with that, do your due diligence and if you are still not satisfied, take it up with historians. If you wish to convince me otherwise, atleast come up with your own analysis of the evidence presented by historians and build your argument based on objective research. So far you seem to be simply saying that jesus is not a historic figure without any objective argument to back it up.

If you believe that jesus is not a historic figure and if it is simply a statement without any argument to back it up, I have nothing to respond to. Onus is on you to come with a detailed analysis of the evidence presented by historians to disagree with them. Until then, I will have zero value for any such statements.

Statements are dime a dozen if there is no analysis to back it up with.

Sir ji...

It is easy to say "take it up with historians"... You know it is impossible for me to do that. I have no access to them. I do have access to you via this DG.

You say the onus is on me to come with a detailed analysis. I want to ask you  - a detailed analysis of what? How can I prove non-existence of something that did not exist?

Let us say, for example, that there is a discussion on existence of Dinosaurs on earth in year 2010. I argue that they don't exist, you argue that they do exist. You say that the onus is on me to prove that they don't exist. Do you seriously think I can do that, except saying that there is no proof of their existence? Isn't it up to you to provide proof of their existence that is acceptable beyond any doubt?

If the discussion is about existence or non-existence of something, then the onus is always on the person who says that ABC exists. You can only prove the existence of something. What proof can be provided to prove that something does not exist? Just think about it. How can I provide any proof or analysis to support an argument that a non-existent thing really does not exist?

I remember the old thread. I also remember that you did not provide any linguistic or archeological evidence of existence of Jesus that was in any way different from proofs provided for existence of Ram. That's why I keep asking that if same parameters are applied to both and results are same, how can you say one is historic and other is mythological?


For the record -- In this whole argument of existence or non-existence of Jesus and Ram, I am not even saying that none of them ever existed. If fact, I am saying both of them existed and walked the earth. My objection is that why do people say Jesus is historical and Ram is mythological, when there is no shred of archeological evidence, that is acceptable beyond any doubt, that shows that Jesus ever existed. When it comes to linguistic evidence, if you think there is enough evidence to show existence of Jesus, then there is also enough similar evidence out there to show existence of Ram. That's my whole point.

I am not saying sun rises from west, or that Einstein is more intelligent than Flute.

there is proof being giving by historians for jesus existence..you need to look at the proof and analyze the same before taking a stand. You are taking a stand in vacuum by refusing to dwell into the evidence presented by historians. WHY,
WHY are you saying jesus never existed without caring to look at the evidence presented by historians?

SO, if I say Dinosaurs never existed, the onus is on you to prove it? are you serious? based on current knowledge, it is a well accepted fact that Dinosaurs existed, if I counter it, I have to present the evidence, not you. Same way, historicity of jesus is an accepted fact among most of the historians, if you disagree, the onus is on you, not me or historians.

[flute]

My objection is that why do people say Jesus is historical and Ram is mythological, when there is no shred of archeological evidence, that is acceptable beyond any doubt, that shows that Jesus ever existed. When it comes to linguistic evidence, if you think there is enough evidence to show existence of Jesus, then there is also enough similar evidence out there to show existence of Ram. That's my whole point.

what is your logic behind above quote? what archeological and linguistic evidence are you talking about here? what similar evidence in case of Sri Rama are you talking about? details my friend details..statements mean nothing, your analysis makes the difference. dwell into so called archeological & linguistic evidence for jesus and ram and methodically arrive at a conclusion of how there is similar evidence or lack thereof in case of both great men and then your view holds water, not otherwise.