Re: We have ruled India for 1000 years
The sad thing is that the perception in Indian subcontinent is ,invaders means they are all muslims!!!
Alexander was an invader,mongols were invaders ,portugese,Dutch and British were invaders.
if the statement means nothing, if does not carry any weight or credibility then y is the fuss?
the notion that Indians do try to hide their inferiority complex and their fear from the muslims in the sub-continent drive them to post these kind of topics...
No wonder India wets its pants whenever its tiny neighbor adds anything in its defense equipment...
For Muslims nationality is based on religion rather than race, ethnicity, lineage, blood, caste, tribe, language or geography...
The early Muslims comprised of Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Ethiopians but they all considered themselves one nation, one community under the servitude of Allah and the leadership of Muhammed PBUH.
Most Muslims consider themselves one community or Sanghat as you would call it, that is why even today if a Gujarati Muslim is persecuted a Punjabi Muslim from Pakistan feels his pain, if a Palestinian is persecuted a Somalian feels his pain, if a Bosnian is persecuted a Tamil Muslim feels his pain.
Muslims of the South-Asian subcontinent do not consider Arabs/Persians/Turks superior to themselves or their masters but we do consider them our equals and our brethren in faith.
I'm from a mixed Punjabi/Pashtun family and I am proud to be Punjabi/Pashtun.
I am not an Arab or a Turk, I'm as Punjabi as someone from Indian Punjab but Indians or Sikhs do not have monopoly over Punjabiyat...
I am Punjabi but but when it comes to love and solidaritory I would feel closer to a Turk or a Somalian than a fellow Punjabi who hates my beloved Prophet Muhammad PBUH and ridicules him, calls him derogratory names, who tries to unite with racists against us (e.g. that Sikh guy who joined the BNP because he hated Muslims).
I've always tried being friendly with non-Muslims of my ethnicity because we have so much in common (foods, language, tarditions etc.) but inevitably they say something ignorant or hateful and things turn sour, I have only one friend who doesn't feel the need to hate on us but he's not that religious and even eats halaal meat...
My family has intermarried with lots of other Muslim ethnicities (Arabs, Gujaratis, Bengalis) and I feel Muslims really are one community, our traditions and values are the same even if we have our superficial differences.
I'm all for tolerance and love between members of all religions whether we're the same ethnicty or not but it's so hard nowadays, even fellow Desis are so ignorant, prejudiced, hateful and hurtful...
...I try ignoring it but inevitably it does get to you and it hurts..
...That's why it's just easier to socialise with people in the Muslim community (Punjabis, Anglo-White, Pashtuns, Kurds, Arabs, Gujaratis, Bengalis, Somalians etc.)
Invaders had caused a considerale detrimential to Indian culture and it's religion where as local Kings played a very little role in that fashion.
Now you're changing your point. You first claimed that common Indians suffered under the rule of the invaders. However, now that I've pointed out that common Indians suffered the same under local Hindu kings, you're changing your argument to claim that the "invaders" destroyed Indian culture (whatever that is).
"Indian culture" wouldn't be what it is today without the various foreign influences brought in by successive waves rulers. Indian language, literature, art, architecture, music, cuisine, etc all bear the mark of the "invaders". Without their Central Asian cultural influences there would be no Hindi/Hindustani language, some of India's greatest and most emblematic monuments would never have been built, Indian music would have no sitars, sarods, or santoors, and no one in India would have heard of mehndi, shalvar qameez, kurta payjamas, etc. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
Nobody is demonising Muslim rulers.Rulers like Shershah,Babar,Humayun,Akbar stand out and are acknowledged and praised even today ,for their pragmatic approaches and visions.
You're contradicting yourself. Babur and Humayoun were both foreign-born invaders. They are also not particularly admired in Indian society. If they were admired, why do Hindus often try to insult Indian Muslims by referring to them as Babur ki aulaad?
Re: We have ruled India for 1000 years
We (Sikhs) ruled Pakistan for 100 years....
Re: We have ruled India for 1000 years
Muhammad Ali Jinnah ridiculed his grand father Gokuldas Meghji by saying "We have ruled you for 1000 years"
Allama Iqbal made fun of his grand father Sahaj Ram Sapru by claiming "We have ruled you for 1000 years".
Or may be AR Rahman making fun of his hindu father "We have ruled you for 1000 years".
Sounds extremely absurd. These personalities knew/know who they are and where they came from.
Now you're changing your point. You first claimed that common Indians suffered under the rule of the invaders. However, now that I've pointed out that common Indians suffered the same under local Hindu kings, you're changing your argument to claim that the "invaders" destroyed Indian culture (whatever that is).
Wrong.Where did I change my point here?I said local Muslims also suffered under invaders and thats a fact.You can go through the history and can find it out yourself.
The invaders ofcourse brought in numerous destructions to Indian culture and the places related to it.This is not a secret.
"Indian culture" wouldn't be what it is today without the various foreign influences brought in by successive waves rulers. Indian language, literature, art, architecture, music, cuisine, etc all bear the mark of the "invaders". Without their Central Asian cultural influences there would be no Hindi/Hindustani language, some of India's greatest and most emblematic monuments would never have been built, Indian music would have no sitars, sarods, or santoors, and no one in India would have heard of mehndi, shalvar qameez, kurta payjamas, etc. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
You're contradicting yourself. Babur and Humayoun were both foreign-born invaders. They are also not particularly admired in Indian society. If they were admired, why do Hindus often try to insult Indian Muslims by referring to them as Babur ki aulaad?
I think you are trying to establish a wrong picture here.India has got a very rich culture dating back to many milliniums.The vivid picture of a rich Indian culture is abudantly available from our great classics like Ramayana Mahabharatha,vedas , our old manuscripts and philosphical teachings.Thats the hardcore of Indian culture.Indian culture bears the distinctive quality of welcoming outside influence.The marks of that quality can be seen anywhere.
But some invaders ,in an attempt to etablish their religion by swords,tried to impose their way forcibly on this culture.yes ofcourse ,the Indian culture bears those marks aswell.
You need to do a little bit research on Babar and Humayun.Babar had instructed Humayun to understand India and it's culture and Humayun had its traits and the same was delivered to the great Akbar.Sadly Sahahjahan and Aurangazeb had forgotten these and no wonder ,the Moghal dynasty,once a great empire reduced to ashes.
Janab-e-Ali I agree, the world (not just India) owe much to Muslims and Islam in the way of culture, civlisation, arts, science etc.
MuslimHeritage.com
Nobody gives us credit for our prostive contributions but only the negative ones..
A lot of South-Asian Muslims had already converted to Islam at the hands of Saints from Central-Asia before the invasion of the Muslim kings.
Hindutva extremist morons have issues with Islam being foreign but what about Hinduism?
Hinduism (or its predecessor Vedicism) was also brought to South-Asia by Aryan foreigners from Central-Asia, the Aryans have died out and got diluted beyond recognition with local blood (even amongst the Brahmins) but Hinduism/Vedic-Religion remains with aspects of local religions mixed into it...
Not to mention that the center of Aryan/Vedic civilisation was actually Pakistan, Khalistan, Kashmir etc. and from there they ruled India, that is why even today the people of these areas have a more Aryan phenotype.
I know what I said above is unpalatble to extremist Hindutva fundos but it is the truth, invasion or migration the fact is that Hinduism just like Islam and Christianity was also brought from outside and then South-Asianised just like Islam and Christianity.
It's the way of nature, cultures and civlisations have always undergone change and always will... Why should we have to stick to a static identity?
Extremist Muslims and extremist Hindus both need to be a bit more tolerant to others and relaise that neither community has a pristine record...
The notion that Islam is less South-Asian is very offensive, South-Asian Muslims are mostly of local stock... It is this Hindutva meantality that "Muslims are malecha foreigners that need to be expelled or converted by the Arya-Samajh" which made the creation of Pakistan a neccesity.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah ridiculed his grand father Gokuldas Meghji by saying "We have ruled you for 1000 years"
Allama Iqbal made fun of his grand father Sahaj Ram Sapru by claiming "We have ruled you for 1000 years".
Or may be AR Rahman making fun of his hindu father "We have ruled you for 1000 years".
Sounds extremely absurd. These personalities knew/know who they are and where they came from.
It is you who are obsessed with lineage and blood.
For Muslims their religious identity comes before Asabiyyah.
Only he whose heart is iluminated by the Light of Iman will beable to understand this.
Comments like "we ruled you..." are unneccesary and retarded but I disagree with you Hindutva fundos that we should remain static and obsessed with our Hindu past, religions change over time....
Why does South-Asian identity boil down only to Hinduism for you Hindutva fundos?
Hinduism is a religion, whilst Indian (Punjabi, Gujarati etc.) is an ethnicity...
You claim to be secular but in reality you have the most unsecular mindset ever.
Greeks were once Pagan but now Greek-Orthodox Christianity is their national identity...
Similarly Hindus have become Sikh, Buddhist, Muslim and none of these religions believes in Hindu scripture, their religion has changed but their ethnicity remains the same...
Re: We have ruled India for 1000 years
The truth is that no matter how much of a secular facade they put on these Indians are Hindutva Fundos who believe India=Hinduism.
They believe that Islam and Christianity are foreign and that Muslims/Christians are less Indian because they have left their Hindu past.
Despite claims of secularism Hinduism is considered the "original Indian religion" whilst Islam, Christianity etc. foreign religions...
That is why I'm greatful for Pakistan.
Indian identity just boild down to Hinduism for them. For fcuk sake Hinduism is just a religion and religions change.
Wrong.Where did I change my point here?I said local Muslims also suffered under invaders and thats a fact.You can go through the history and can find it out yourself.
Common Indians suffered under local Hindu kings all the same.
I think you are trying to establish a wrong picture here.India has got a very rich culture dating back to many milliniums.The vivid picture of a rich Indian culture is abudantly available from our great classics like Ramayana Mahabharatha,vedas , our old manuscripts and philosphical teachings.Thats the hardcore of Indian culture.Indian culture bears the distinctive quality of welcoming outside influence.The marks of that quality can be seen anywhere.
The cultural contributions I spoke of were brought in by foreign rulers and aristocrats, not Indian culture' alleged openess to outside influence.
You need to do a little bit research on Babar and Humayun.Babar had instructed Humayun to understand India and it's culture and Humayun had its traits and the same was delivered to the great Akbar.
You need to go and do your research. Babur and Humayoun were both "invaders" - who you claim have always been a destructive force.
It is you who are obsessed with lineage and blood.
For Muslims their religious identity comes before Asabiyyah.
Only he whose heart is iluminated by the Light of Iman will beable to understand this.
Comments like "we ruled you..." are unneccesary and retarded but I disagree with you Hindutva fundos that we should remain static and obsessed with our Hindu past, religions change over time....
Why does South-Asian identity boil down only to Hinduism for you Hindutva fundos?
Hinduism is a religion, whilst Indian (Punjabi, Gujarati etc.) is an ethnicity...
You claim to be secular but in reality you have the most unsecular mindset ever.
Greeks were once Pagan but now Greek-Orthodox Christianity is their national identity...
Similarly Hindus have become Sikh, Buddhist, Muslim and none of these religions believes in Hindu scripture, their religion has changed but their ethnicity remains the same...
Thank you, "Comments like "we ruled you..." are unneccesary and retarded ", this is the only thing I wanted to hear.
Common Indians suffered under local Hindu kings all the same.
The cultural contributions I spoke of were brought in by foreign rulers and aristocrats, not Indian culture' alleged openess to outside influence.
You need to go and do your research. Babur and Humayoun were both "invaders" - who you claim have always been a destructive force.
You are simply trying to generalise things here.There is always a difference between suffering of commeon people under local rulers and invaders.
The invasion caused India's indigenous language(the one that had been practised ,revered and respected)Sanskrit, to decline it's importance and position.
The other things as you said,music ,food and attire are simply not of importance.They were just a part of the natural process of change or metamorphosis ,as what you call. Moreover,the ouside influence has not had any good impact over these.Still the Karnatic or the pristine Hindustani music is being practised and accepted.
I still wonder what destructions Humayun had caused?He was simply day dreamer and a lethargic guy who never cared to act even when his enemies were at his door step.
Re: We have ruled India for 1000 years
sanskrit isnt an indigenous indian language.
as for who has ruled whom, can someone name three punjabis who have ruled punjab?
or three sindhis who have ruled sindh?
technically, the great afghans and the great indians have ruled over most of pakistan for the last 5000 years. 
as for who has ruled whom, can someone name three punjabis who have ruled punjab?
At what point does one become a Punjabi? Starting with the Ghauris and the Mamluks, we start to see rulers of Afghan/Central Asian ancestry shifting their capitals to Lahore and settling in the Subcontinent. When to they cease to be "foreigners?"
or three sindhis who have ruled sindh?
Probably one of the worst examples you could have chosen. Sind has an extensive history of self-rule. At various points throughout the past 1000 years it was ruled by the native Sindhi Soomro Dynasty, who were followed by the native Sindhi Samma Dynasty - essentially spanning a 500 year period of native rule between them.
At what point does one become a Punjabi? Starting with the Ghauris and the Mamluks, we start to see rulers of Afghan/Central Asian ancestry shifting their capitals to Lahore and settling in the Subcontinent. When to they cease to be "foreigners?"
At the point where they referred to themselves as punjabis by identity - and not as turks. mamluks and ghorids were turkic kings, hardly contributed anything to punjabi culture. nor did they have lahore as their capital.
[quote]
Sind has an extensive history of self-rule. At various points throughout the past 1000 years it was ruled by the native Sindhi Soomro Dynasty, who were followed by the native Sindhi Samma Dynasty - essentially spanning a 500 year period of native rule between them.
[/QUOTE]
this is very interesting. with native heros like the soomros and the sammas, why is it that pakistanis dont have a single thing of national importance named after them? there is no shortage of aghan, turkic, or arab heros who have been adopted and used to name national landmarks - right from qaddafi stadium to faisalabad. heck, even the madrasi king tipu sultan commands more respect in pakistan than these sindhi kings.
At the point where they referred to themselves as punjabis by identity - and not as turks. mamluks and ghorids were turkic kings, hardly contributed anything to punjabi culture. nor did they have lahore as their capital.
this is very interesting. with native heros like the soomros and the sammas, why is it that pakistanis dont have a single thing of national importance named after them? there is no shortage of aghan, turkic, or arab heros who have been adopted and used to name national landmarks - right from qaddafi stadium to faisalabad. heck, even the madrasi king tipu sultan commands more respect in pakistan than these sindhi kings.
If you dont have it, then borrow it. Borrowed important names.
Afghan meant Pashtun in the olden days.
Only today does the word Afghan mean “citizen of Afghanistan”.
We Pashtuns are equally a part of Pakistan as of Afghanistan, so the heritage of the ancient Pashtuns is as much Pakistan’s as it is Afghanistans.
So the Pashtun Kings who ruled India belong equally to Pashtuns in Pakistan as they do to Pashtuns in Afghanistan.
Re: We have ruled India for 1000 years
Khair this is a stupidly retarded thread.
This kind of nationalism, being obsessed with roots which causes problems like racism, facism, extremism, obsession with creating a pure identity etc.
No wonder Asabiyyah is Haraam in Islam.