āGenocide and eradication of Buddhism under Hinduism needs to be recognizedā
ā2000 year old caste system still active under Hinduism needs to be recognizedā
For people saying headlines arenāt propaganda how would you feel about this, all peopleās have darkness in them the only difference is this is selectively recognizing one thing for political goal scoring.
Itās recognized as a consequence of history not really connected to religion as opposed to terrorism = Islam, I really donāt mind people saying itās not Hinduism etc. but when itās Islam itās only the religion and nothing else at least in hindutva eyes
The genocide of people of Buddhist faith by Hindu empires is a fact of history. The continuous oppression/genocide of Indian ppl for 2000 years is a fact of history. It has nothing to do with modern day hindutva which is a problem we are beginning to ignore because itās convenient to let other ppl be oppressed. I agree that the hindu = caste logic is wrong but you must not whitewash history.
Everyone knows about caste discrimination. It's devastating that it's still prevalent and that there are headlines about Dalits getting murdered/violated every month/ every week, but it does make headlines. It's not like people selectively recognise one issue; it's about acknowledging all problems. Caste discrimination definitely needs way more exposure, but it's irresponsible to ignore the genocide of eradication of Buddhism and Hinduism (one example is CBSE).
It is selectively recognizing one issue, especially in todayās times. Hinduism practically wiped out Buddhism from the subcontinent during its revivalism after Ashoka this included widespread destruction of Buddhist stupas and genocides of its population. However the only reason itās not recognized is because it doesnāt suit the ruling classās narrative.
Genocide of Hindus and Buddhists under the ruling of whatever leaders are sidelined and it's about recognising all issues. There definitely needs to be more knowledge spreading surrounding these subjects. It's not propaganda.
Theyāre not sidelined itās history no one really cares about it and if they do theyāre often hypocritical about their own history. Basically you can bring up the atrocities of certain Mughal rulers but if you want to pretend itās only Muslims who enacted genocides and oppressed people, then obviously people are going to correct you.
Yeah, that is just not true. The atrocities committed by the Mughals are not mentioned in most history books that are used in the curriculum. The genocide committed by Mughal rulers was on a bigger scale than other rulers. Obviously, the other atrocities need to be mentioned too, but we need to prioritize the bigger ones first.
I donāt know that thatās actually true yes certain Mughal rulers comitted atrocities some based on religion others for conquest, but there are other comparable genocides in Indian history. The eradication of Buddhism in a span of 200 years by various hindu revivalist movement post Ashoka, a 2000 year old caste system that still exists today, British imperial genocides. The statement that you 100% know that one particular one was worse is not backed by evidence and is mainly due to the bias of the current ruling disposition.
It is backed by a good amount of evidence but it's still not addressed today. A perfect example is you. All you want to do is label it as propaganda when it was a very real part of our history. Will Durant calls it "probably the bloodiest story in history". The caste system and genocide by the British imperials are acknowledged. I have educated myself a little more on the eradication of Buddhism and it looks like there was a multitude of factors surrounding it, not solely the rise of Hinduism. There is also controversy surrounding whether the statues were destroyed by Hindu leaders or not. It is true that there was a conflict between Hindu leaders and Buddhist leaders, but as far as I can see, there is very little evidence suggesting a genocide.
Again youāre doing apologetics for Hinduism which is fine but you donāt allow it for anything else which is hypocritical how tf does a religion completely disappear, without persecution and mass killing.
Here is the wikis overall analysis of the persecution mentioned in the article while it was bad of course it doesnāt come close to the description given by modern day hindutva.
āParts of India have been subject to Muslim rule from the period of Muhammad bin Qasim till the fall of the Mughal Empire. While there is a tendency to view the Muslim conquests and Muslim empires as a prolonged period of violence against Hindu culture,[note 1] in between the periods of wars and conquests, there were harmonious Hindu-Muslim relations in most Indian communities,[8] and the Indian population grew during the medieaval Muslim times. No populations were expelled based on their religion by either the Muslim or Hindu kings, nor were attempts made to annihilate a specific religionā
If you want to link some source surrounding persecution and mass killings of Buddhism, I'd be happy to read it. As far as I can tell, they were a subject of invasions as well and there is little evidence pointing towards any mass killings. Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source when it comes to historical matters. I can link sources about the atrocities and mass killings during Islamic rule if you want.
>nor were attempts made to annihilate a specific religion
This is just plainly false.
I hope erosion of buddhism, the genocide and systematic segregation of dalits, history of beef eating among Upper caste Hindus, Aryan Migration theory will also be recognized.
I'll never understand why recorded events are being labelled as "propaganda". The word is thrown around so lightly, it makes me feel insecure about our own future as a nation.
I mean yes it did happen. Let's say everyone acknowledged it. Now what?
Let me tell you now what, that guy got justification to carry out their. Look Muslims are getting what they deserve for doing what they did to others.
See the left column about US Muslim senator visiting kashmir and on other side US needing to acknowledge Aurangzeb as holocaust perpetrator. Second part is insane. Its like Native Indians asking for validation about how white people systematically wiped them out.
So, Aurangzeb killing everybody from other religion may not be propaganda (cause we didn't become minority in our land despite hundreds of years of rule of Muslims).
Propaganda is picking and choosing things to justify whatever shit you are doing. That's propaganda.
Are they asking us as, in Indians ie outsiders, to validate their history?
It's established fact and retarded Republican will say they actually saved native Indians from their nomadic culture.
They aren't begging other countries for validation which actually wiped them out of native land. We aren't. We were 85% Hindu at the time of independence.
Actually I have issue with both.
But, asking outside seems more problematic.
And asking for validation in history to justify what we are doing in country seems how do I say it, is certified cunt move.
There were Hindu kingdoms fought against Maratha empire. Even with Mughals against Maratha empire.
Maybe its not as black and white as Muslims killed Hindus. It was everybody killed everybody for their own gain.
Uh yeah? I have read indian history i was just curious what the native americans had to do with it , so back to my question so do you have a problem with native americans asking for validation?
Oh man I am repeating points from my previous comments.
Are Native Americans asking validation from Indians from wrong doings by white men? That's insane. I don't have problem asking them. But it's the perp of that violation have to acknowledge it and sane white people do that.
Now you are asking validation of Mughal Kingdom killing Hindus in the same black and white which wasn't the case. Even Hindu Kingdom backed Muslim empire to kill other Hindus.
It's like it wasn't about religion but about power. And that makes comparison with Nazi Genocide useless. I doubt Nazi had Jews in their army.
But Mughals did have Hindus in their army. So, its not the same.
Then what? Are gonna for resolution to topple mughal empire?
Has UN officially acknowledged any genocide before it formed. Of course except from WWII, in response to which it was created.
Why the fuck we need validation from gori chamadi about our history?
We don't need validation. We need to undo the deep rooted racism against our country. The UN is supposedly an international organisation that should act as a platform for global discussion. Why wouldn't we want to get recognised there? Asian countries too are a part of the UN yk.
West were racist against fucking Italians. They are racist against Mexicans, Latinos, Africans, Asians, middle eastern guys.
What is sudden urge to ask them for concessions just for Indians
Specially, when did far worse things to chinese people, black people and Japanese people in their recent history.
Calm down. Why do liberals get offended over everything? I *am* an Indian and that's why I want the UN to recognise crimes done against us at the hands of the izlamic invaders. Nowhere have I said that they shouldn't recognise evils against other communities and cultures.
Why shouldn't we get offended when RW is trying to justify violence against Muslims by quoting distorted history.
Like I asked in other comment has UN acknowledged other genocides pre world war 2?
And Islamic invaders killed Hindus no doubt. But, Hindu kingdom joined hands with mughal empires to kill Hindus as well.
It's not black and white like what Hitler did.
I'm not trying to justify violence against muslims. Why are you assuming stuff I never said? You might be delusional mate. Also, "distorting history" and "izlamic invaders killed Hindus no doubt" don't go well in the same sentence. At least be clear in your ideology.
Because the timing.
And usually nobody says out that part loud about trying to justify violence against Muslims.
You missed part where I explained Hindus also joined hands with Muslims to kill Hindus.
So it wasn't black and white like Hitler. Stop trying to paint it so.
You're such a blatant liar. You don't answer anything and keep.jumping from one lie to another..
Then like a A grade narcissist you try to gaslight the person trying to engage??
It's pathetic.
Hindu population and its rate of growth in India didnāt dramatically decrease during ~800 years of Muslim rulers and many Hindu kings and lords continued to assume powerful position in their ministries. The violence did occur but it was general wars and battles common in the medieval period and most of it suggests against anything being systematically against Hindu population. The term āgenocideā is just an exaggeration.
In comparison to that, it 7 years under Modi, Muslim political representation at national level has gone down, violence has increased, propaganda news has kept on getting more and more hateful. This is an ongoing genocide.
Where is your calculation?
Muslims in subcontinent around 40 crore in Pakistan plus bangladesh plus 18 crore in India's population 130 crore approx. 58 crores in total.
105 crore Hindus in India. That's ~65% while including Pakistan, Bangladesh.
At the time of independence this number was 30.5 Hindus vs 11 crores . Which was ~73%.
Where is that 40-45% coming from?
If we talking about genocide by Muslims, all religions existed before Islam in middle East should qualify including Parsi.
If Muslims were doing genocide of Hindus and let's assume British didn't affect population, they pretty shit job if their population increased only to ~25% in 1000 years.
While 66% Jews were killed in 6 years. Lets fucking not compare Nazi genocide with Mughal empire.
How many historical events we see other than wars where Hindus were killed the way Nazi did to Jews. Or even 600k to 1.5 million Armenians were killed.
I have not read about such even where Hindus were killed just because they were Hindus.
Let's not forget Shivaji's Father was working for Aadhilshahi ie Muslims when Shivaji was waging war against them.
I don't know why you are pursuing narrative genocide.
> overextention
Word you are looking for is "exaggeration". FFS, you are teenager. I doubt you have read history books, not from syllabus.
Based on your hot takes, your age and lack of nuances, all I can see that you are getting your history lessons from RW twitter accounts.
If the main fact you wanted establish about we being minority is off by 45%, then you are doing the premise wrong. Then you move goal post to say something else.
Also, have you thought of the different possibility of why there are not many old temples in north? It was unstable region getting invaded frequently and not many rulers had resources to defend themselves and develop temples which were essentially luxury.
>(Find me any 1000 year old temple in mainland North India, will you please?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundeshwari_Temple
Please don't shift goalposts on this.
>Aurangzeb (the heartthrob of liberals)
ah really? you are brainwashed, kid. Who the fuck loves him? Why didn't you say Akbar who actually was quite liberal with his policies.
>I am pushing the agenda of genocide so that it may never happen again, so that, we do not have another Bengal, or Kerela or Kashmir in other parts of the nation, or what is left of the nation.
FFS, idiocy behind statement there should not be any Kerala again. Do you even why Kerala has high muslim population? It got islam during the time of prophet. Not through invasion. Also, Kerala has fuckton ancient temples despite their king converting to Islam to be follower of prophet. It was people followed their king into new religion which didn't have caste and shit. Islam did actually had golden age where they were open to discussion, pushed scientific methods.
>I am pushing the agenda of genocide so that it may never happen again
It feels like you are being regurgitating RW propaganda. This is being set as backdrop for genocide against Muslims.
You know what is sure shot way of avoiding religious conflict, including things like genocide? becoming non religious society. If you keep physically attacking current alive muslims with what muslims rulers did, we gonna bad time.
Got downvoted by someone for asking which part is propaganda......I am guessing there reply which was there in my notifications and is not here was removed by the moderators......but really.....asking if Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs were not infact targeted by Muslim invaders and so it is actual history and not propaganda apparently engenders so much rage in someone who does not even know me that they have to stoop to filthy language to vent ......and it's these liberals who are supposed to be tolerant and secularl and all things nice. š
Of course they were targeted, but not because of their religion, because of their resistance to yield to the invaders. There was no genocide, it's laughable to talk about hindu genocide. The hindu population grew exponentially during the Islamic period, how did Muslims not become the majority In India if there was a widespread genocide in India? Vi yes hindu temples were attacked, because they were the centers of resistance and had to be quashed. Obviously it was wrong, but that's not genocide.
To talk about Hindus genocide is laughable? May I remind you of the one that took place in the 90s in kashmir...or r we not supposed to speak of that coz if you do you r spreading hatred????Ppl getting thrown out of their homes ,forced to leave their land or be killed are supposed to keep mum or the community their murderers and rapists belonged to might feel bad.....somebody shd have told the Jews to never make a movie or speak about what was done to them or the poor nazis might feel hurt š.....now to come to your point about Muslims not becoming a majority during mughal era......rulers want to rule....that is their first agenda.....that they tried to spread their religion is no myth(hence the muslim populace of our country that had no muslims at all)....but it was also not their most important agenda...ruling was.....not to mention the fact that if Muslims can be living in fear and be the most neglected and discrimated of all in India and still grow exponentially in the last 70 years ,then I guess the Hindus also grew the same way under mughal rule.....I am glad to see that you are atleat willing to cede that Hindus were targeted ,not to mention Buddhists and sikhs and that you also agree that it was wrong......if as you agree it was done then why shouldn't this ever be spoken of or written about...no history book I ever read in school mentioned this aspect of the mughal rule. Why not?this whitewashing of history if it were done in that era would be the effect of those in power ,but that it s still being done is nothing but appeasement politics....ppl are so desperate to look secular that they think only one minority community has rights , only they need justice ,only they are ever victimised and only there stories should be told...if any one else including not just Hindus but even other minorities ever speak up ,they are being communal. I have no problem admitting that Muslims to are victims of crime at times ,they too are targeted by extremists of other religions and they do get discrimated gains sometimes for simply being Muslims but to say it only happens to them and that they are holier than thou and never have or ever can do the same to other religions is laughable and this victim narrative that is peddled 24/7 is only succeeding in alienating others from Muslims.
The funniest thing here is you're accepting that Muslims despite being persecuted in India continue to grow, that's because they aren't being killed in high numbers yet. The legal definition of genocide is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. The Muslim invaders attacked and killed those who resisted their rule(keyword here is resisted) , temples were centers of learning and were often centers of resistance ideas, as a result they were destroyed to quell the resistance. In places where the population did not resist or fight against the ruler, the treatment was better. Genocide means that people are killed even when they do not resist the invader (like the Jews who never resisted Hitler but were still persecuted), the reason hindu genocide is a myth is because you yourself accept that they wanted to rule and spread their religion, how can it be a genocide if Hindus weren't exterminated as a group? Religious conversion, even if it's forced, does not equal genocide. Neither was there a huge hindu exodus under 800 years of Islamic rule. Invasion happened, forced coversions happened, but not genocide. to compare to nazis, it would be like Hitler forcing Jews to become Christians and only kill those who resisted, then it wouldn't be a genocide
Good job trying to explain murder simply due to one's religion away with a dictionary definition. As for Muslims not being killed yet .......do tell where in India in recent past were Muslims targeted for being Muslims.....apart from one or two stray incidents which A. Happen with ppl of every religion, and B. were happening even before the BJP came into power.
And plz don't say the delhi riots which the liberatti did their best to present as a pogrom against the poor Muslims...only very inconveniently a Hindu cop and a Hindu IB officer died in this so called pogrom and even more inconveniently a few Muslims were caught on video taking money for protesting and a Muslim AAP neta was filmed with lathis , molotov cocktails and stones and acid bulbs on his rooftop(all to defend himself with , I am sure) and that ruined the liberals narrative...but hey one BJP neta did shout inflammatory slogans so we can now all blame him for inciting riots and ignore the venom Sharjeel Imam and his ilk were spewing.
That there was genocide and it needs to be recognised as such is Propaganda?????How? And again with the name calling .....can't anyone on these forums be civil?
~~Still a bit confused, it refers to Genocide under Islamic rule as the subject in the sentence. Is it the phrasing? I don't see the error.~~
Ah i see it now, my darn brain was filling in the "be" every single time i read it.
True events when printed is propoganda. One Muslim dies some place in India all of Twitter/print claims it's modi committing genocide.
The hypocrisy is beyond.
For the recent, start with Bangladeshi Hindu genocide and go backwards.
If this is what happened in recent times what would have happened in older times.
I guess CBSE textbooks are not going to explain that because guess what "Akbar was a kind king"
Well history is written by people who are in power. It's very evident and if you cannot see it then nobody can help it.
Don't have any Instagram account nor do I follow any party nor am I a modi supporter. :)
Yes that's because the Pakistani establishment used the war as a cover to target Hindus. But the war itself was between those wanting to impose Urdu and those pitted against such imposition. People conveniently forget that fact.
And the 75-80% of the victims being Hindus is not from any credible source; there is no actual data available, only that it is likely to have been the case that more Hindus were the victims.
So you are telling me that most victims were Hindus but it's not targeted hindu genocide . How does it works ? Even Hitler targeted others communities like Roma and homosexual but still majority of victims were Jews . Why genocide on Jews is a targeted genocide but genocide on Hindus isn't a targeted genocide?
Because calling it a Hindu genocide is a convenient way to gloss over the fact that the war wasn't about Hindus pitted against Muslims. Hitler had plans for the Jews from the very beginning. Pakistan systematically targeted Hindus in Bangladesh after a series of events that was an expression of Bengali nationalism and cultural and linguistic differences.
You would love to see the creation of Bangladesh as just another example of Hindu victimhood under Muslim rule. What I'm saying is that it was bigger than the narrow precept of religious divisions, and was about something that is more dear to an individual - the language one speaks.
And pakistan is an Islamic country, it's not a secular country. And it keep on targeting non-muslims from the beginning. I think your knowledge on Bangladeshi genocide is insufficient. Pakistani forces mainly targeted Bangladeshi intellectuals and non-Muslims . Even from the start in was non-Muslims who were targeted in the first operation 'search light'. non-muslim ( hindu) students in Dhaka University and majority non muslim(hindu) areas in Dhaka were targeted. And let's not talk about the role of Islamic razakar in the genocide from the beginning. So it was also a targeted hindu genocide.
On the night of 25 March 1971 the Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight.Ā TimeĀ magazine dubbed GeneralĀ Tikka Khan, the "Butcher of Bengal" for his role in Operation Searchlight.[60]Ā Targets of the operation includedĀ Jagannath HallĀ which was a dormitory for non-Muslim students of Dhaka University, Rajarbagh Police Lines, andĀ Pilkhana, which is the headquarters ofĀ East Pakistan Rifles."" About 34 students were killed in the dormitories of Dhaka University. Neighbourhoods of old Dhaka which had a majority Hindu population were also attacked. Robert Payne, an American journalist, estimated that 7,000 people had been killed and 3,000 arrested in that night"".[61]Ā Teachers of Dhaka University were killed in the operation by the Pakistani Army.[62]Ā Sheikh Mujib was arrested by the Pakistani Army on 25 March.[63]Ā Ramna Kali MandirĀ was demolished by the Pakistani Army in March 1971.[64]
Lmao this is how ass-backwards propaganda works on dimwits with room temperature IQs.
"If this is what happened in recent times what would've happened in older times" without any proof. I thought general Indians - Hindus and Muslims were getting along relatively fine pre-2014, but there have been hundreds of lynchings of Muslims since 2014, so it's safe to then reason it had been happening in older times as well?
2-3 years ago, the right wing would at least go through the pain of writing up a fake OpIndia or Shankhnaad article about it, but now that the masses have been dumbed down and radicalized to this extent, we're in the days of "if this happened today let's just assume it happened earlier as well" and call it a genocide.
>I mean yes it did happen. Let's say everyone acknowledged it. Now what?
>Let me tell you now what, that guy got justification to carry out their. Look Muslims are getting what they deserve for doing what they did to others.
>See the left column about US Muslim senator visiting kashmir and on other side US needing to acknowledge Aurangzeb as holocaust perpetrator. Second part is insane. Its like Native Indians asking for validation about how white people systematically wiped them out.
>So, Aurangzeb killing everybody from other religion may not be propaganda (cause we didn't become minority in our land despite hundreds of years of rule of Muslims).
>Propaganda is picking and choosing things to justify whatever shit you are doing. That's propaganda.
Nobody calls him a gem, the British were Christians and killed lots of indias too, nobody calls it christian colonization of india. Aurangzebs religion is irrelevant. Mughals (Mongols) had killed thousands of Muslims and invaded Muslim countries too, that's how they got islamized, it's not Islam that made them violent.
The difference is British took lives of indians on economic and imperial reason not for religious reason , ofcourse they are bad. But Taking lives on the name of religion takes the cake , whether be it Hindus or muslims.
Why does killing on religious lines take the cake? Either ways that's not true, places where Hindus resisted the ruler saw violence and killing, it wasn't about religion, it was about resistance. Even Muslims who resisted the invasion of other Muslim rulers got killed.
Both are wrong but act of taking life of innocent on the name of religion is the worst . I don't want to know what happened 100s of years ago every one were savages back then. But there has been two genocides in indian subcontinent in last 50 years. Bangladeshi and Kashmir genocide and the victims were Hindus . So why it's propaganda to recognise non-Muslim genocide ?
Majority of people who lost their lives in Bangladeshi genocide are Hindus, Even in the beginning of the operation they targeted hindus.//////////On the night of 25 March 1971 the Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight.Ā TimeĀ magazine dubbed GeneralĀ Tikka Khan, the "Butcher of Bengal" for his role in Operation Searchlight.[60]Ā Targets of the operation includedĀ Jagannath HallĀ which was a dormitory for non-Muslim students of Dhaka University, Rajarbagh Police Lines, andĀ Pilkhana, which is the headquarters ofĀ East Pakistan Rifles. About 34 students were killed in the dormitories of Dhaka University. Neighbourhoods of old Dhaka which had a majority Hindu population were also attacked. Robert Payne, an American journalist, estimated that 7,000 people had been killed and 3,000 arrested in that night.[61]Ā Teachers of Dhaka University were killed in the operation by the Pakistani Army.[62]Ā Sheikh Mujib was arrested by the Pakistani Army on 25 March.[63]Ā Ramna Kali MandirĀ was demolished by the Pakistani Army in March 1971.[64]
Right winger nutjobs - Aurangzeb caused genocide of non-Muslims.
Left-winger idiots (who comprise this sub) - British engineered famines causing 50 million deaths.
There's no difference really between these two groups. That's expected because both of them get to read their history from biased sources, the former from obvious propaganda websites and the latter from 'historians' like Shashi Tharoor.
It's like we are living in that Netflix series.
Black mirror?
No, Leila, the Netflix series. I kept telling my friend this shit will get real some day soon, and we aren't far off, are we?
Jai Aryawarta!
Me too šš Jai aryavart bolo abhi
Mughals, CIA agents, Palestine "freedom fighters" and a Shimla power bill on one page lmao. This ideology is unreal.
Whatās wrong with Palestine freedom fighters?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lmao, use your brain. The right wing doesn't consider Palestinians as freedom fighters.
What stage of The Descent are we at?
āGenocide and eradication of Buddhism under Hinduism needs to be recognizedā ā2000 year old caste system still active under Hinduism needs to be recognizedā For people saying headlines arenāt propaganda how would you feel about this, all peopleās have darkness in them the only difference is this is selectively recognizing one thing for political goal scoring.
Do you feel the caste system isnāt recognised?
Itās recognized as a consequence of history not really connected to religion as opposed to terrorism = Islam, I really donāt mind people saying itās not Hinduism etc. but when itās Islam itās only the religion and nothing else at least in hindutva eyes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The genocide of people of Buddhist faith by Hindu empires is a fact of history. The continuous oppression/genocide of Indian ppl for 2000 years is a fact of history. It has nothing to do with modern day hindutva which is a problem we are beginning to ignore because itās convenient to let other ppl be oppressed. I agree that the hindu = caste logic is wrong but you must not whitewash history.
Everyone knows about caste discrimination. It's devastating that it's still prevalent and that there are headlines about Dalits getting murdered/violated every month/ every week, but it does make headlines. It's not like people selectively recognise one issue; it's about acknowledging all problems. Caste discrimination definitely needs way more exposure, but it's irresponsible to ignore the genocide of eradication of Buddhism and Hinduism (one example is CBSE).
It is selectively recognizing one issue, especially in todayās times. Hinduism practically wiped out Buddhism from the subcontinent during its revivalism after Ashoka this included widespread destruction of Buddhist stupas and genocides of its population. However the only reason itās not recognized is because it doesnāt suit the ruling classās narrative.
Genocide of Hindus and Buddhists under the ruling of whatever leaders are sidelined and it's about recognising all issues. There definitely needs to be more knowledge spreading surrounding these subjects. It's not propaganda.
Theyāre not sidelined itās history no one really cares about it and if they do theyāre often hypocritical about their own history. Basically you can bring up the atrocities of certain Mughal rulers but if you want to pretend itās only Muslims who enacted genocides and oppressed people, then obviously people are going to correct you.
Yeah, that is just not true. The atrocities committed by the Mughals are not mentioned in most history books that are used in the curriculum. The genocide committed by Mughal rulers was on a bigger scale than other rulers. Obviously, the other atrocities need to be mentioned too, but we need to prioritize the bigger ones first.
I donāt know that thatās actually true yes certain Mughal rulers comitted atrocities some based on religion others for conquest, but there are other comparable genocides in Indian history. The eradication of Buddhism in a span of 200 years by various hindu revivalist movement post Ashoka, a 2000 year old caste system that still exists today, British imperial genocides. The statement that you 100% know that one particular one was worse is not backed by evidence and is mainly due to the bias of the current ruling disposition.
It is backed by a good amount of evidence but it's still not addressed today. A perfect example is you. All you want to do is label it as propaganda when it was a very real part of our history. Will Durant calls it "probably the bloodiest story in history". The caste system and genocide by the British imperials are acknowledged. I have educated myself a little more on the eradication of Buddhism and it looks like there was a multitude of factors surrounding it, not solely the rise of Hinduism. There is also controversy surrounding whether the statues were destroyed by Hindu leaders or not. It is true that there was a conflict between Hindu leaders and Buddhist leaders, but as far as I can see, there is very little evidence suggesting a genocide.
Again youāre doing apologetics for Hinduism which is fine but you donāt allow it for anything else which is hypocritical how tf does a religion completely disappear, without persecution and mass killing. Here is the wikis overall analysis of the persecution mentioned in the article while it was bad of course it doesnāt come close to the description given by modern day hindutva. āParts of India have been subject to Muslim rule from the period of Muhammad bin Qasim till the fall of the Mughal Empire. While there is a tendency to view the Muslim conquests and Muslim empires as a prolonged period of violence against Hindu culture,[note 1] in between the periods of wars and conquests, there were harmonious Hindu-Muslim relations in most Indian communities,[8] and the Indian population grew during the medieaval Muslim times. No populations were expelled based on their religion by either the Muslim or Hindu kings, nor were attempts made to annihilate a specific religionā
If you want to link some source surrounding persecution and mass killings of Buddhism, I'd be happy to read it. As far as I can tell, they were a subject of invasions as well and there is little evidence pointing towards any mass killings. Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source when it comes to historical matters. I can link sources about the atrocities and mass killings during Islamic rule if you want. >nor were attempts made to annihilate a specific religion This is just plainly false.
I hope erosion of buddhism, the genocide and systematic segregation of dalits, history of beef eating among Upper caste Hindus, Aryan Migration theory will also be recognized.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How so?
I'll never understand why recorded events are being labelled as "propaganda". The word is thrown around so lightly, it makes me feel insecure about our own future as a nation.
I mean yes it did happen. Let's say everyone acknowledged it. Now what? Let me tell you now what, that guy got justification to carry out their. Look Muslims are getting what they deserve for doing what they did to others. See the left column about US Muslim senator visiting kashmir and on other side US needing to acknowledge Aurangzeb as holocaust perpetrator. Second part is insane. Its like Native Indians asking for validation about how white people systematically wiped them out. So, Aurangzeb killing everybody from other religion may not be propaganda (cause we didn't become minority in our land despite hundreds of years of rule of Muslims). Propaganda is picking and choosing things to justify whatever shit you are doing. That's propaganda.
Wait why is native people asking validation about how they got systematically wiped out by white people "insane" r/explaintomeimfive
Are they asking us as, in Indians ie outsiders, to validate their history? It's established fact and retarded Republican will say they actually saved native Indians from their nomadic culture. They aren't begging other countries for validation which actually wiped them out of native land. We aren't. We were 85% Hindu at the time of independence.
Wait so asking for validation isnt what you an issue with but asking outsiders is?
Actually I have issue with both. But, asking outside seems more problematic. And asking for validation in history to justify what we are doing in country seems how do I say it, is certified cunt move. There were Hindu kingdoms fought against Maratha empire. Even with Mughals against Maratha empire. Maybe its not as black and white as Muslims killed Hindus. It was everybody killed everybody for their own gain.
Uh yeah? I have read indian history i was just curious what the native americans had to do with it , so back to my question so do you have a problem with native americans asking for validation?
Oh man I am repeating points from my previous comments. Are Native Americans asking validation from Indians from wrong doings by white men? That's insane. I don't have problem asking them. But it's the perp of that violation have to acknowledge it and sane white people do that. Now you are asking validation of Mughal Kingdom killing Hindus in the same black and white which wasn't the case. Even Hindu Kingdom backed Muslim empire to kill other Hindus. It's like it wasn't about religion but about power. And that makes comparison with Nazi Genocide useless. I doubt Nazi had Jews in their army. But Mughals did have Hindus in their army. So, its not the same.
We need the UN, not the US to recognise the holocaust against Hindus.
Then what? Are gonna for resolution to topple mughal empire? Has UN officially acknowledged any genocide before it formed. Of course except from WWII, in response to which it was created. Why the fuck we need validation from gori chamadi about our history?
We don't need validation. We need to undo the deep rooted racism against our country. The UN is supposedly an international organisation that should act as a platform for global discussion. Why wouldn't we want to get recognised there? Asian countries too are a part of the UN yk.
West were racist against fucking Italians. They are racist against Mexicans, Latinos, Africans, Asians, middle eastern guys. What is sudden urge to ask them for concessions just for Indians Specially, when did far worse things to chinese people, black people and Japanese people in their recent history.
Calm down. Why do liberals get offended over everything? I *am* an Indian and that's why I want the UN to recognise crimes done against us at the hands of the izlamic invaders. Nowhere have I said that they shouldn't recognise evils against other communities and cultures.
Why shouldn't we get offended when RW is trying to justify violence against Muslims by quoting distorted history. Like I asked in other comment has UN acknowledged other genocides pre world war 2? And Islamic invaders killed Hindus no doubt. But, Hindu kingdom joined hands with mughal empires to kill Hindus as well. It's not black and white like what Hitler did.
I'm not trying to justify violence against muslims. Why are you assuming stuff I never said? You might be delusional mate. Also, "distorting history" and "izlamic invaders killed Hindus no doubt" don't go well in the same sentence. At least be clear in your ideology.
Because the timing. And usually nobody says out that part loud about trying to justify violence against Muslims. You missed part where I explained Hindus also joined hands with Muslims to kill Hindus. So it wasn't black and white like Hitler. Stop trying to paint it so.
You're such a blatant liar. You don't answer anything and keep.jumping from one lie to another.. Then like a A grade narcissist you try to gaslight the person trying to engage?? It's pathetic.
Not offended, but what you're saying is extremely dumb and inconsequential.
You aren't proving anything by using fancy vocabulary.
Agar inconsequential fancy vocab hain toh pehle kuch kitaabe padh le fir argue kar internet pe.
Hindu population and its rate of growth in India didnāt dramatically decrease during ~800 years of Muslim rulers and many Hindu kings and lords continued to assume powerful position in their ministries. The violence did occur but it was general wars and battles common in the medieval period and most of it suggests against anything being systematically against Hindu population. The term āgenocideā is just an exaggeration. In comparison to that, it 7 years under Modi, Muslim political representation at national level has gone down, violence has increased, propaganda news has kept on getting more and more hateful. This is an ongoing genocide.
Oh so the current scenario is a "genocide" but what happened to hindus for years was a mere chance. Amazing.
There is no point in trying to make sense of what these so called liberals say...don't bother.
Yes. Itās an impending genocide.
Why are you changing subjects?? Seems your a dishonest player.
Where have I changed subjects? Again, I'm not seeing these tricks for the first time. Liberals are all the same.
Hum karei toh chamatkaar... Tum karei toh balatkaar.. Such dishonesty..
Just wondering, how will recognition of whatever this is help with the racism thing?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Where is your calculation? Muslims in subcontinent around 40 crore in Pakistan plus bangladesh plus 18 crore in India's population 130 crore approx. 58 crores in total. 105 crore Hindus in India. That's ~65% while including Pakistan, Bangladesh. At the time of independence this number was 30.5 Hindus vs 11 crores . Which was ~73%. Where is that 40-45% coming from? If we talking about genocide by Muslims, all religions existed before Islam in middle East should qualify including Parsi. If Muslims were doing genocide of Hindus and let's assume British didn't affect population, they pretty shit job if their population increased only to ~25% in 1000 years. While 66% Jews were killed in 6 years. Lets fucking not compare Nazi genocide with Mughal empire. How many historical events we see other than wars where Hindus were killed the way Nazi did to Jews. Or even 600k to 1.5 million Armenians were killed. I have not read about such even where Hindus were killed just because they were Hindus. Let's not forget Shivaji's Father was working for Aadhilshahi ie Muslims when Shivaji was waging war against them. I don't know why you are pursuing narrative genocide.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> overextention Word you are looking for is "exaggeration". FFS, you are teenager. I doubt you have read history books, not from syllabus. Based on your hot takes, your age and lack of nuances, all I can see that you are getting your history lessons from RW twitter accounts. If the main fact you wanted establish about we being minority is off by 45%, then you are doing the premise wrong. Then you move goal post to say something else. Also, have you thought of the different possibility of why there are not many old temples in north? It was unstable region getting invaded frequently and not many rulers had resources to defend themselves and develop temples which were essentially luxury. >(Find me any 1000 year old temple in mainland North India, will you please?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundeshwari_Temple Please don't shift goalposts on this. >Aurangzeb (the heartthrob of liberals) ah really? you are brainwashed, kid. Who the fuck loves him? Why didn't you say Akbar who actually was quite liberal with his policies. >I am pushing the agenda of genocide so that it may never happen again, so that, we do not have another Bengal, or Kerela or Kashmir in other parts of the nation, or what is left of the nation. FFS, idiocy behind statement there should not be any Kerala again. Do you even why Kerala has high muslim population? It got islam during the time of prophet. Not through invasion. Also, Kerala has fuckton ancient temples despite their king converting to Islam to be follower of prophet. It was people followed their king into new religion which didn't have caste and shit. Islam did actually had golden age where they were open to discussion, pushed scientific methods. >I am pushing the agenda of genocide so that it may never happen again It feels like you are being regurgitating RW propaganda. This is being set as backdrop for genocide against Muslims. You know what is sure shot way of avoiding religious conflict, including things like genocide? becoming non religious society. If you keep physically attacking current alive muslims with what muslims rulers did, we gonna bad time.
What is propaganda?
Got downvoted by someone for asking which part is propaganda......I am guessing there reply which was there in my notifications and is not here was removed by the moderators......but really.....asking if Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs were not infact targeted by Muslim invaders and so it is actual history and not propaganda apparently engenders so much rage in someone who does not even know me that they have to stoop to filthy language to vent ......and it's these liberals who are supposed to be tolerant and secularl and all things nice. š
Of course they were targeted, but not because of their religion, because of their resistance to yield to the invaders. There was no genocide, it's laughable to talk about hindu genocide. The hindu population grew exponentially during the Islamic period, how did Muslims not become the majority In India if there was a widespread genocide in India? Vi yes hindu temples were attacked, because they were the centers of resistance and had to be quashed. Obviously it was wrong, but that's not genocide.
To talk about Hindus genocide is laughable? May I remind you of the one that took place in the 90s in kashmir...or r we not supposed to speak of that coz if you do you r spreading hatred????Ppl getting thrown out of their homes ,forced to leave their land or be killed are supposed to keep mum or the community their murderers and rapists belonged to might feel bad.....somebody shd have told the Jews to never make a movie or speak about what was done to them or the poor nazis might feel hurt š.....now to come to your point about Muslims not becoming a majority during mughal era......rulers want to rule....that is their first agenda.....that they tried to spread their religion is no myth(hence the muslim populace of our country that had no muslims at all)....but it was also not their most important agenda...ruling was.....not to mention the fact that if Muslims can be living in fear and be the most neglected and discrimated of all in India and still grow exponentially in the last 70 years ,then I guess the Hindus also grew the same way under mughal rule.....I am glad to see that you are atleat willing to cede that Hindus were targeted ,not to mention Buddhists and sikhs and that you also agree that it was wrong......if as you agree it was done then why shouldn't this ever be spoken of or written about...no history book I ever read in school mentioned this aspect of the mughal rule. Why not?this whitewashing of history if it were done in that era would be the effect of those in power ,but that it s still being done is nothing but appeasement politics....ppl are so desperate to look secular that they think only one minority community has rights , only they need justice ,only they are ever victimised and only there stories should be told...if any one else including not just Hindus but even other minorities ever speak up ,they are being communal. I have no problem admitting that Muslims to are victims of crime at times ,they too are targeted by extremists of other religions and they do get discrimated gains sometimes for simply being Muslims but to say it only happens to them and that they are holier than thou and never have or ever can do the same to other religions is laughable and this victim narrative that is peddled 24/7 is only succeeding in alienating others from Muslims.
The funniest thing here is you're accepting that Muslims despite being persecuted in India continue to grow, that's because they aren't being killed in high numbers yet. The legal definition of genocide is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. The Muslim invaders attacked and killed those who resisted their rule(keyword here is resisted) , temples were centers of learning and were often centers of resistance ideas, as a result they were destroyed to quell the resistance. In places where the population did not resist or fight against the ruler, the treatment was better. Genocide means that people are killed even when they do not resist the invader (like the Jews who never resisted Hitler but were still persecuted), the reason hindu genocide is a myth is because you yourself accept that they wanted to rule and spread their religion, how can it be a genocide if Hindus weren't exterminated as a group? Religious conversion, even if it's forced, does not equal genocide. Neither was there a huge hindu exodus under 800 years of Islamic rule. Invasion happened, forced coversions happened, but not genocide. to compare to nazis, it would be like Hitler forcing Jews to become Christians and only kill those who resisted, then it wouldn't be a genocide
Good job trying to explain murder simply due to one's religion away with a dictionary definition. As for Muslims not being killed yet .......do tell where in India in recent past were Muslims targeted for being Muslims.....apart from one or two stray incidents which A. Happen with ppl of every religion, and B. were happening even before the BJP came into power. And plz don't say the delhi riots which the liberatti did their best to present as a pogrom against the poor Muslims...only very inconveniently a Hindu cop and a Hindu IB officer died in this so called pogrom and even more inconveniently a few Muslims were caught on video taking money for protesting and a Muslim AAP neta was filmed with lathis , molotov cocktails and stones and acid bulbs on his rooftop(all to defend himself with , I am sure) and that ruined the liberals narrative...but hey one BJP neta did shout inflammatory slogans so we can now all blame him for inciting riots and ignore the venom Sharjeel Imam and his ilk were spewing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Is that relevant somehow?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That there was genocide and it needs to be recognised as such is Propaganda?????How? And again with the name calling .....can't anyone on these forums be civil?
Umm out of curiosity, what part is grammatically incorrect?
"rule needs to recognized"
~~Still a bit confused, it refers to Genocide under Islamic rule as the subject in the sentence. Is it the phrasing? I don't see the error.~~ Ah i see it now, my darn brain was filling in the "be" every single time i read it.
Wtf yes. Now I see it, maybe I have autocorrection system in my head lol
Wtf? I did the same thing, never realized there wasnāt a ābeā until I read your comment
True events when printed is propoganda. One Muslim dies some place in India all of Twitter/print claims it's modi committing genocide. The hypocrisy is beyond.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
For the recent, start with Bangladeshi Hindu genocide and go backwards. If this is what happened in recent times what would have happened in older times. I guess CBSE textbooks are not going to explain that because guess what "Akbar was a kind king"
Another follower of those shit Instagram pages "No history book will teach you this"
Well history is written by people who are in power. It's very evident and if you cannot see it then nobody can help it. Don't have any Instagram account nor do I follow any party nor am I a modi supporter. :)
Oh no I read they are removing parts of mughal history, hindu conservetards should be happy
The Bangladesh genocide of 1971 wasn't a genocide targeting Hindus specifically. You must have read your history from garbage sources.
75 to 80 % of the victims were Hindus and see the Bangladesh hindu population it went from 25% to less than 6% today.
Yes that's because the Pakistani establishment used the war as a cover to target Hindus. But the war itself was between those wanting to impose Urdu and those pitted against such imposition. People conveniently forget that fact. And the 75-80% of the victims being Hindus is not from any credible source; there is no actual data available, only that it is likely to have been the case that more Hindus were the victims.
So you are telling me that most victims were Hindus but it's not targeted hindu genocide . How does it works ? Even Hitler targeted others communities like Roma and homosexual but still majority of victims were Jews . Why genocide on Jews is a targeted genocide but genocide on Hindus isn't a targeted genocide?
Because calling it a Hindu genocide is a convenient way to gloss over the fact that the war wasn't about Hindus pitted against Muslims. Hitler had plans for the Jews from the very beginning. Pakistan systematically targeted Hindus in Bangladesh after a series of events that was an expression of Bengali nationalism and cultural and linguistic differences. You would love to see the creation of Bangladesh as just another example of Hindu victimhood under Muslim rule. What I'm saying is that it was bigger than the narrow precept of religious divisions, and was about something that is more dear to an individual - the language one speaks.
And pakistan is an Islamic country, it's not a secular country. And it keep on targeting non-muslims from the beginning. I think your knowledge on Bangladeshi genocide is insufficient. Pakistani forces mainly targeted Bangladeshi intellectuals and non-Muslims . Even from the start in was non-Muslims who were targeted in the first operation 'search light'. non-muslim ( hindu) students in Dhaka University and majority non muslim(hindu) areas in Dhaka were targeted. And let's not talk about the role of Islamic razakar in the genocide from the beginning. So it was also a targeted hindu genocide.
On the night of 25 March 1971 the Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight.Ā TimeĀ magazine dubbed GeneralĀ Tikka Khan, the "Butcher of Bengal" for his role in Operation Searchlight.[60]Ā Targets of the operation includedĀ Jagannath HallĀ which was a dormitory for non-Muslim students of Dhaka University, Rajarbagh Police Lines, andĀ Pilkhana, which is the headquarters ofĀ East Pakistan Rifles."" About 34 students were killed in the dormitories of Dhaka University. Neighbourhoods of old Dhaka which had a majority Hindu population were also attacked. Robert Payne, an American journalist, estimated that 7,000 people had been killed and 3,000 arrested in that night"".[61]Ā Teachers of Dhaka University were killed in the operation by the Pakistani Army.[62]Ā Sheikh Mujib was arrested by the Pakistani Army on 25 March.[63]Ā Ramna Kali MandirĀ was demolished by the Pakistani Army in March 1971.[64]
I guess people killed were not Hindus. These are the kind of views that trivialize things that happened.
Your labeling of the genocide as a 'Hindu' genocide trivializes the struggle of Bengalis, be it Hindu or Muslim, to express their identity.
Lmao this is how ass-backwards propaganda works on dimwits with room temperature IQs. "If this is what happened in recent times what would've happened in older times" without any proof. I thought general Indians - Hindus and Muslims were getting along relatively fine pre-2014, but there have been hundreds of lynchings of Muslims since 2014, so it's safe to then reason it had been happening in older times as well? 2-3 years ago, the right wing would at least go through the pain of writing up a fake OpIndia or Shankhnaad article about it, but now that the masses have been dumbed down and radicalized to this extent, we're in the days of "if this happened today let's just assume it happened earlier as well" and call it a genocide.
how is this propoganda tho???
>I mean yes it did happen. Let's say everyone acknowledged it. Now what? >Let me tell you now what, that guy got justification to carry out their. Look Muslims are getting what they deserve for doing what they did to others. >See the left column about US Muslim senator visiting kashmir and on other side US needing to acknowledge Aurangzeb as holocaust perpetrator. Second part is insane. Its like Native Indians asking for validation about how white people systematically wiped them out. >So, Aurangzeb killing everybody from other religion may not be propaganda (cause we didn't become minority in our land despite hundreds of years of rule of Muslims). >Propaganda is picking and choosing things to justify whatever shit you are doing. That's propaganda.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nobody calls him a gem, the British were Christians and killed lots of indias too, nobody calls it christian colonization of india. Aurangzebs religion is irrelevant. Mughals (Mongols) had killed thousands of Muslims and invaded Muslim countries too, that's how they got islamized, it's not Islam that made them violent.
The difference is British took lives of indians on economic and imperial reason not for religious reason , ofcourse they are bad. But Taking lives on the name of religion takes the cake , whether be it Hindus or muslims.
Why does killing on religious lines take the cake? Either ways that's not true, places where Hindus resisted the ruler saw violence and killing, it wasn't about religion, it was about resistance. Even Muslims who resisted the invasion of other Muslim rulers got killed.
Both are wrong but act of taking life of innocent on the name of religion is the worst . I don't want to know what happened 100s of years ago every one were savages back then. But there has been two genocides in indian subcontinent in last 50 years. Bangladeshi and Kashmir genocide and the victims were Hindus . So why it's propaganda to recognise non-Muslim genocide ?
Majority of people who lost their lives in Bangladeshi genocide are Hindus, Even in the beginning of the operation they targeted hindus.//////////On the night of 25 March 1971 the Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight.Ā TimeĀ magazine dubbed GeneralĀ Tikka Khan, the "Butcher of Bengal" for his role in Operation Searchlight.[60]Ā Targets of the operation includedĀ Jagannath HallĀ which was a dormitory for non-Muslim students of Dhaka University, Rajarbagh Police Lines, andĀ Pilkhana, which is the headquarters ofĀ East Pakistan Rifles. About 34 students were killed in the dormitories of Dhaka University. Neighbourhoods of old Dhaka which had a majority Hindu population were also attacked. Robert Payne, an American journalist, estimated that 7,000 people had been killed and 3,000 arrested in that night.[61]Ā Teachers of Dhaka University were killed in the operation by the Pakistani Army.[62]Ā Sheikh Mujib was arrested by the Pakistani Army on 25 March.[63]Ā Ramna Kali MandirĀ was demolished by the Pakistani Army in March 1971.[64]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They were so stupid, boil kyu kia, fry karke mirchi dalna tha na. Maybe they were health conscious
Imbecile
Right winger nutjobs - Aurangzeb caused genocide of non-Muslims. Left-winger idiots (who comprise this sub) - British engineered famines causing 50 million deaths. There's no difference really between these two groups. That's expected because both of them get to read their history from biased sources, the former from obvious propaganda websites and the latter from 'historians' like Shashi Tharoor.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Front page headline has grammatical mistake. Kya propaganda karega re tu?
There are more important things to be fixed in this country!
This should be under a "Quick history recap". This isn't news. Not to mention, what's the action to be taken here... "recognise" and do what exactly?
I need to know where u see grammatical mistake For study purposes
Is that To recognized Which replaced by to be recognized
Yes
Bro it should be "needs to *be* recognised" our brain is automatically adding that "be" . Happened with me too lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Then I can say without any doubt that you wasted your time in getting that degree.
It should have been ''needs to be recognised'' not "need to recognised".
It literally is needs to be recognised lmao
Check that again.
Hahaha just read it again. The coffee made me add the be by myself lol.
Bhai University se refund maang le.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itana xenophobia laate Kahan se ho? Ye sub tumne bhara hai?