No mention of North India or South India

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:43 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/world/asia/rape-cases-are-making-tourists-wary-of-visiting-india.html

Il Professore, you should write to them and set the record straight.

by Guest Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:12 am

wth!!! did not expect this from THE new york times.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:13 pm

yes i am concerned people might think delhi, agra, and himachal pradesh are right next door to thuthukudi.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:15 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:yes i am concerned people might think delhi, agra, and himachal pradesh are right next door to thuthukudi.

Maybe tourists don't go to South India.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:21 pm

maybe. maybe the kind of tourist who visits northindia are the people who want to see the monuments represented in the one or two garish bollywood movies that they have watched, or maybe think they'll be waited on like in the best exotic marigold hotel. maybe the far fewer visitors who visit TN are students of BN and CM or maybe those visiting TN do so to scope out business opps. you may be right.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:21 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe. maybe the kind of tourist who visits northindia are the people who want to see the monuments represented in the one or two garish bollywood movies that they have watched, or maybe think they'll be waited on like in the best exotic marigold hotel. maybe the far fewer visitors who visit TN are students of BN and CM or maybe those visiting TN do so to scope out business opps. you may be right.

In fact I don't see too many foreign tourists in South India.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:24 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe. maybe the kind of tourist who visits northindia are the people who want to see the monuments represented in the one or two garish bollywood movies that they have watched, or maybe think they'll be waited on like in the best exotic marigold hotel. maybe the far fewer visitors who visit TN are students of BN and CM or maybe those visiting TN do so to scope out business opps. you may be right.

In fact I don't see too many foreign tourists in South India.

Evidence of worldwide decline of intelligent people.

(Inum InathOdu SaErum)

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:26 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe. maybe the kind of tourist who visits northindia are the people who want to see the monuments represented in the one or two garish bollywood movies that they have watched, or maybe think they'll be waited on like in the best exotic marigold hotel. maybe the far fewer visitors who visit TN are students of BN and CM or maybe those visiting TN do so to scope out business opps. you may be right.

In fact I don't see too many foreign tourists in South India.

Evidence of worldwide decline of intelligent people.

(Inum InathOdu SaErum)

On that note, KS ranks 33rd in population out of the 50 states.

by Guest Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:46 pm

People don't go to TN coz they don't *deserve* to be in TN. They will not, in next three generations, understand the real beauty of the place and people. Just loving dosai/vadai/sambar is *not* sufficient to *love* TN. You don't even deserve to know about other dishes, they are too good for you, dammit.

Ya, no one in TN even wants tourists. Anyone who deserves to visit TN is already there. So, *F* you all.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:58 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:People don't go to TN coz they don't *deserve* to be in TN. They will not, in next three generations, understand the real beauty of the place and people. Just loving dosai/vadai/sambar is *not* sufficient to *love* TN. You don't even deserve to know about other dishes, they are too good for you, dammit.

Ya, no one in TN even wants tourists. Anyone who deserves to visit TN is already there. So, *F* you all.

So there is hope after 3 generations????... Razz

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:59 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe. maybe the kind of tourist who visits northindia are the people who want to see the monuments represented in the one or two garish bollywood movies that they have watched, or maybe think they'll be waited on like in the best exotic marigold hotel. maybe the far fewer visitors who visit TN are students of BN and CM or maybe those visiting TN do so to scope out business opps. you may be right.

In fact I don't see too many foreign tourists in South India.

Evidence of worldwide decline of intelligent people.

(Inum InathOdu SaErum)

On that note, KS ranks 33rd in population out of the 50 states.

Jesus ensures that "undesirables" dont come to Kansaaas.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:08 pm

TN is interesting for people who are interested in temple architecture, BN, and CM. these are fairly esoteric and not surprisingly not very popular. i also think tamilians are terrible at marketing. not their forte. from the standpoint of kicking back and relaxing and seeing nature in all its splendor, the hidden (to a certain extent) gem is kerala.

by Guest Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:14 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:TN is interesting for people who are interested in temple architecture, BN, and CM. these are fairly esoteric and not surprisingly not very popular. i also think tamilians are terrible at marketing. not their forte. from the standpoint of kicking back and relaxing and seeing nature in all its splendor, the hidden (to a certain extent) gem is kerala.

ya, as a rule, you suspect all overexposed, known, and shining gems. Something gotta be a 'hidden' and underrated gem for you to get all poetic about it.

afaik, kerala is pretty famous and popular among all tourists. Guess it will fall from ur list of awesome places soon.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:20 pm

correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:49 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe. maybe the kind of tourist who visits northindia are the people who want to see the monuments represented in the one or two garish bollywood movies that they have watched, or maybe think they'll be waited on like in the best exotic marigold hotel. maybe the far fewer visitors who visit TN are students of BN and CM or maybe those visiting TN do so to scope out business opps. you may be right.

In fact I don't see too many foreign tourists in South India.

Evidence of worldwide decline of intelligent people.

(Inum InathOdu SaErum)

On that note, KS ranks 33rd in population out of the 50 states.

Jesus ensures that "undesirables" dont come to Kansaaas.

Poor CA then.

by bw Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:04 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

ajanta/ellora? vaishno devi? konark? nalanda?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:09 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:TN is interesting for people who are interested in temple architecture, BN, and CM. these are fairly esoteric and not surprisingly not very popular. i also think tamilians are terrible at marketing. not their forte. from the standpoint of kicking back and relaxing and seeing nature in all its splendor, the hidden (to a certain extent) gem is kerala.

ya, as a rule, you suspect all overexposed, known, and shining gems. Something gotta be a 'hidden' and underrated gem for you to get all poetic about it.

afaik, kerala is pretty famous and popular among all tourists. Guess it will fall from ur list of awesome places soon.

I think (again) that you have gotten yourself upgraded in aggression ? Or it could be the 3-day effect.

by Guest Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:46 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:TN is interesting for people who are interested in temple architecture, BN, and CM. these are fairly esoteric and not surprisingly not very popular. i also think tamilians are terrible at marketing. not their forte. from the standpoint of kicking back and relaxing and seeing nature in all its splendor, the hidden (to a certain extent) gem is kerala.

ya, as a rule, you suspect all overexposed, known, and shining gems. Something gotta be a 'hidden' and underrated gem for you to get all poetic about it.

afaik, kerala is pretty famous and popular among all tourists. Guess it will fall from ur list of awesome places soon.

I think (again) that you have gotten yourself upgraded in aggression ?

I have? Cool! I was saying all that lightly though, more like jokingly. Should have added LOLs and emoticons, but anyway, it's just Max. I talk like this with him all the time.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:55 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
I have? Cool! I was saying all that lightly though, more like jokingly. Should have added LOLs and emoticons, but anyway, it's just Max. I talk like this with him all the time.

You are falling in love with him... Razz

Opposites attract..... affraid

by Guest Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:22 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
I have? Cool! I was saying all that lightly though, more like jokingly. Should have added LOLs and emoticons, but anyway, it's just Max. I talk like this with him all the time.

You are falling in love with him...

I am? Cool! Didn't know I was capable of it anymore, lol.

by southindian Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:49 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

Lucky SouthIndians and great SouthIndian kings/dynasties who could stave off Mughal kings march to SouthIndia for long periods. The monuments, temples were safe. NorthIndian monuments and history was rewritten by each Mughal emperor.

SouthIndia was saved from getting razed, ravaged by Mughals and by the time Muslims reached SouthIndia they did not have the power to update landmarks.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:34 am

southindian wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

Lucky SouthIndians and great SouthIndian kings/dynasties who could stave off Mughal kings march to SouthIndia for long periods. The monuments, temples were safe. NorthIndian monuments and history was rewritten by each Mughal emperor.

SouthIndia was saved from getting razed, ravaged by Mughals and by the time Muslims reached SouthIndia they did not have the power to update landmarks.

souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

by Guest Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:40 am

bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

ajanta/ellora? vaishno devi? konark? nalanda?

Also, Khajuraho, Sanchi Stupa, etc.

by southindian Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:31 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
southindian wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

Lucky SouthIndians and great SouthIndian kings/dynasties who could stave off Mughal kings march to SouthIndia for long periods. The monuments, temples were safe. NorthIndian monuments and history was rewritten by each Mughal emperor.

SouthIndia was saved from getting razed, ravaged by Mughals and by the time Muslims reached SouthIndia they did not have the power to update landmarks.

souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

Grandpa, I forgot there were many humans "reaching" southindian shores for trade, around the same time when mughals conquerors killed, ravaged and razed northindia. Great SouthIndian kings also prevented Mughals from conquering south, as a result saving temples and monuments.

Lucky SouthIndia, those "traders" did not unite to kill, convert, rule, raze southindian temples and monuments.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:31 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
southindian wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

Lucky SouthIndians and great SouthIndian kings/dynasties who could stave off Mughal kings march to SouthIndia for long periods. The monuments, temples were safe. NorthIndian monuments and history was rewritten by each Mughal emperor.

SouthIndia was saved from getting razed, ravaged by Mughals and by the time Muslims reached SouthIndia they did not have the power to update landmarks.

souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

i have made this very point a number of times. it is a myth that islam came to northindia first. islam came to the shores of kerala and TN before any place else in india. what is true is that violent islam came to northindia first.

by Guest Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:52 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
southindian wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

Lucky SouthIndians and great SouthIndian kings/dynasties who could stave off Mughal kings march to SouthIndia for long periods. The monuments, temples were safe. NorthIndian monuments and history was rewritten by each Mughal emperor.

SouthIndia was saved from getting razed, ravaged by Mughals and by the time Muslims reached SouthIndia they did not have the power to update landmarks.

souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

i have made this very point a number of times. it is a myth that islam came to northindia first. islam came to the shores of kerala and TN before any place else in india. what is true is that violent islam came to northindia first.

the north was shielding the south for a long time. after all in those days it was easier to send armies than to send navies. southindians should be grateful to northindians for shielding and protecting them for a long time. Also the Nawabs of Arcot ruled over large parts of TN for a long time. The Nawabs were originally from UP.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:56 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

i have made this very point a number of times. it is a myth that islam came to northindia first. islam came to the shores of kerala and TN before any place else in india. what is true is that violent islam came to northindia first.

This is giving undue credit to Islam and Muslims.

1. The muslims who came to Keral were traders - they did not come with swords and weapons. These used Peaceful method of coersion, blackmail, business, and deceit to convert Hindus - much like the Arab Catholics.
2. Southie muslims came very early when the "conquering" was restricted to areas close to the Allahland.
3. The ones that came to naarth were Kings who came specifically to conquer and loot.
4. Islamis (still) never had Sea capabilities.

Case in point - Hyder Ali, Tippu Sultan, Nizam and Arcot Nawab are examples of subdued aggression. All their armies were hindus, with very few islamic comamnders to control, and they had to tone down. The Moguls had enough islamis to command and direct their armies.

The oceans on three side and the mountains across along the North are the simple and true reasons. One can sugar coat and strain valiantly to praise the Southie muslims, but that can never be the truth.

by Guest Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:00 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

i have made this very point a number of times. it is a myth that islam came to northindia first. islam came to the shores of kerala and TN before any place else in india. what is true is that violent islam came to northindia first.

This is giving undue credit to Islam and Muslims.

1. The muslims who came to Keral were traders - they did not come with swords and weapons. These used Peaceful method of coersion, blackmail, business, and deceit to convert Hindus - much like the Arab Catholics.
2. Southie muslims came very early when the "conquering" was restricted to areas close to the Allahland.
3. The ones that came to naarth were Kings who came specifically to conquer and loot.
4. Islamis (still) never had Sea capabilities.

Case in point - Hyder Ali, Tippu Sultan, Nizam and Arcot Nawab are examples of subdued aggression. All their armies were hindus, with very few islamic comamnders to control, and they had to tone down. The Moguls had enough islamis to command and direct their armies.

The oceans on three side and the mountains across along the North are the simple and true reasons. One can sugar coat and strain valiantly to praise the Southie muslims, but that can never be the truth.

in fact the top commanders of Akbar, Jahangir, etc. were hindus, particularly Rajputs. Get your facts right. This is what happens to people who go around claiming they never read any books.

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:53 pm

So is everyone in agreement that whatever bad things happen in North India today are a direct result of the Islamic invasion?

by Guest Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:55 pm

Hellsangel wrote:So is everyone in agreement that whatever bad things happen in North India today are a direct result of the Islamic invasion?

what about the aryan invasion of India? The mighty Indus Valley Civilization was destroyed by the Aryans.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

i have made this very point a number of times. it is a myth that islam came to northindia first. islam came to the shores of kerala and TN before any place else in india. what is true is that violent islam came to northindia first.

This is giving undue credit to Islam and Muslims.

1. The muslims who came to Keral were traders - they did not come with swords and weapons. These used Peaceful method of coersion, blackmail, business, and deceit to convert Hindus - much like the Arab Catholics.
2. Southie muslims came very early when the "conquering" was restricted to areas close to the Allahland.
3. The ones that came to naarth were Kings who came specifically to conquer and loot.
4. Islamis (still) never had Sea capabilities.

Case in point - Hyder Ali, Tippu Sultan, Nizam and Arcot Nawab are examples of subdued aggression. All their armies were hindus, with very few islamic comamnders to control, and they had to tone down. The Moguls had enough islamis to command and direct their armies.

The oceans on three side and the mountains across along the North are the simple and true reasons. One can sugar coat and strain valiantly to praise the Southie muslims, but that can never be the truth.

in fact the top commanders of Akbar, Jahangir, etc. were hindus, particularly Rajputs. Get your facts right. This is what happens to people who go around claiming they never read any books.

When did you ever read any books? Cutting/pasting without knowing the contents is not reading. Besides, I was expecting you to suck up to the iSlamic barbarians and you did not fail us.

What about Aurangazeb's commanders?

by Guest Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:13 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

i have made this very point a number of times. it is a myth that islam came to northindia first. islam came to the shores of kerala and TN before any place else in india. what is true is that violent islam came to northindia first.

This is giving undue credit to Islam and Muslims.

1. The muslims who came to Keral were traders - they did not come with swords and weapons. These used Peaceful method of coersion, blackmail, business, and deceit to convert Hindus - much like the Arab Catholics.
2. Southie muslims came very early when the "conquering" was restricted to areas close to the Allahland.
3. The ones that came to naarth were Kings who came specifically to conquer and loot.
4. Islamis (still) never had Sea capabilities.

Case in point - Hyder Ali, Tippu Sultan, Nizam and Arcot Nawab are examples of subdued aggression. All their armies were hindus, with very few islamic comamnders to control, and they had to tone down. The Moguls had enough islamis to command and direct their armies.

The oceans on three side and the mountains across along the North are the simple and true reasons. One can sugar coat and strain valiantly to praise the Southie muslims, but that can never be the truth.

in fact the top commanders of Akbar, Jahangir, etc. were hindus, particularly Rajputs. Get your facts right. This is what happens to people who go around claiming they never read any books.

When did you ever read any books? Cutting/pasting without knowing the contents is not reading. Besides, I was expecting you to suck up to the iSlamic barbarians and you did not fail us.

What about Aurangazeb's commanders?

Aurangzeb's top commander was Aurangzeb himself. I do not know of any muslim commanders of Aurangzeb although there was certainly one top hindu commander (who was later dismissed for poor performance against the marathas). Aurangzeb had an instinctive distrust of people (since he was scared that they might do to him what he had done to Shah Jahan) and hence he did not groom any of his sons or anybody else to be senior commanders. Aurangzeb's hindu commander had also been a commander under Shah Jahan--in other words he had not been groomed by Aurangzeb.

by southindian Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:25 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
southindian wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

Lucky SouthIndians and great SouthIndian kings/dynasties who could stave off Mughal kings march to SouthIndia for long periods. The monuments, temples were safe. NorthIndian monuments and history was rewritten by each Mughal emperor.

SouthIndia was saved from getting razed, ravaged by Mughals and by the time Muslims reached SouthIndia they did not have the power to update landmarks.

souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

i have made this very point a number of times. it is a myth that islam came to northindia first. islam came to the shores of kerala and TN before any place else in india. what is true is that violent islam came to northindia first.

No Max, not true.

Violent Islam COULD NOT easily come to SouthIndia, so SouthIndia's monuments, temples are safe. The SouthIndian kings did their best to keep violent Islam away, in the end saving the temples, monuments.

The Muslim traders' nature was no different that their brethren in NorthIndia. The traders just couldn't do what British did several years later. The traders were not sponsored by Ghaznis, Ghoris and could not bring horses, armory and troops to SouthIndia through boats.

In that day and age, land was the only way for large offenses and for Muslims, the region could only be approached through Afghanistan. NorthIndia lay right in front of invaders. SouthIndia defended better when Mughals did eventually venture south.

Result: You can still see ancient Indian temples and monuments in SouthIndia today in 2013, while NorthIndia was razed and remodeled through Mughal invasions.

by Guest Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:37 pm

southindian wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
southindian wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:correct me if i am wrong, but isn't nearly all the significant architecture of the north of turko-persian origin and design? what can you point to that's uniquely indian?

Lucky SouthIndians and great SouthIndian kings/dynasties who could stave off Mughal kings march to SouthIndia for long periods. The monuments, temples were safe. NorthIndian monuments and history was rewritten by each Mughal emperor.

SouthIndia was saved from getting razed, ravaged by Mughals and by the time Muslims reached SouthIndia they did not have the power to update landmarks.

souththindian, you should correct your knowledge of hisory; muslims had "reached" southern india, especially kerala, long before any moghal arrived in northindia or any part of india. those muslims did not raze southern indian buildings or beat southern indians to submission for the next few centuries as the moghals did the northindians; they were traders, not conquerors. ja?

i have made this very point a number of times. it is a myth that islam came to northindia first. islam came to the shores of kerala and TN before any place else in india. what is true is that violent islam came to northindia first.

No Max, not true.

Violent Islam COULD NOT easily come to SouthIndia, so SouthIndia's monuments, temples are safe. The SouthIndian kings did their best to keep violent Islam away, in the end saving the temples, monuments.

The Muslim traders' nature was no different that their brethren in NorthIndia. The traders just couldn't do what British did several years later. The traders were not sponsored by Ghaznis, Ghoris and could not bring horses, armory and troops to SouthIndia through boats.

In that day and age, land was the only way for large offenses and for Muslims, the region could only be approached through Afghanistan. NorthIndia lay right in front of invaders. SouthIndia defended better when Mughals did eventually venture south.

Result: You can still see ancient Indian temples and monuments in SouthIndia today in 2013, while NorthIndia was razed and remodeled through Mughal invasions.

Looks like you and Max are ignorant about the Battle of Talikota, conquest of Vijayanagar empire by the Bahamani rulers, etc. is this a case of ignorance is bliss?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:16 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Looks like you and Max are ignorant about the Battle of Talikota, conquest of Vijayanagar empire by the Bahamani rulers, etc. is this a case of ignorance is bliss?

The Behmaani rulers are Moguls surrogates, who destroyed everything in their own Islamo-barbaric fashion. There falls your claim of Moguls' pro-hindu benevolent golden rule.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:23 pm

(a) nothing i have said in this thread is incorrect. the muslim traders arrived on the kerala and TN shores well before any other muslim presence in india. kerala in fact has the oldest mosque in india. the arabic traders then settled down in kerala and TN and married into hindu families. in fact they were given the appellation mApiLLAs (sons-in-law) in kerala. their tribe to this day is known as the mApiLLAs. the ones who settled down in TN are called marakkAyars, named for their skill with using wooden rafts. india's former president a.p.j.abdul kalam is a marakkAyar muslim.

(b) mApiLLAs and marakkAyars speak malayalam and tamil respectively. they are southern indian muslims. the marakkAyars have a strong literary tradition in tamil. a marakkAyar poet, umaruppulavar wrote the sIrAppurANam, a hagiographic epic poem about prophet muhammad in tamil in a style modeled after the kambarAmAyaNam. the former chief justice of the madras high court, m.m.ismail, a marakkAyar muslim was the most eloquent tamil litterateur and has written one of the most moving commentaries on the kambarAmAyaNam.

(c) the mApiLLAs and marakkAyars have ancient historical roots in southern india dating back to the 8th century.

(d) i do not consider the bahamanis or behmanis to be southern indian muslims. they never had any strong roots to the south, and i don't think they were ethnically southern indian like the mApiLLAs and marakkAyars. as far as i know they were offshoots or vassals of some delhi sultanate. it is not surprising to me that they brought their delhi violence with them. incidentally the term bEmAni is a derogatory madras tamil word. it means a person who is behaving like an asshole. you can guess its origin.

(e) if there is anyone who is ignorant in this thread, it is rashmun. he did not even know that the muslims of kerala spoke malayalam. in a prior thread he was mouthing off some nonsense as usual and i had to set him straight.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:30 pm

here is an essay about the muslims of kerala and TN and their distinctly different history than northindian muslims by a noted scholar of south asian studies, prof sanjay subrahmanyam of UCLA:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/southasia/article.asp?parentid=27779

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:38 pm

here is an article about chief justice m.m.ismail:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mintamil/fidUqDTcgyM/cwfpmEQtfZgJ

by Rishi Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:53 pm

Max,

Mapillas killed a lot of Hindus in 1920s.

The Malabar Rebellion (also known as the "Moplah Rebellion", "മാപ്പിള ലഹള" Māppila Lahaḷa in Malayalam) was an armed uprising in 1921 againstBritish authority and Hindus^[2] in the Malabar region of Southern India byMappila Muslims and the culmination of a series of Mappila revolts that recurred throughout the 19th century and early 20th century.^[3] The 1921 rebellion began as a reaction against a heavy handed crackdown on theKhilafat Movement ^[4] by the British authorities in the Eranad and Valluvanadtaluks of Malabar. In the initial stages, a number of minor clashes took place between Khilafat volunteers and the police, but the violence soon spread across the region.^[5] The Mappilas attacked and took control of police stations, British government offices, courts and government treasuries. The largelykudiyaan (tenant) Mappilas also attacked and killed jenmi (landlords) of theHindu Nair and Brahmin Nambudiri castes. In the later stages of the uprising, Mappilas committed several atrocities against the Hindu community, who they accused of helping the police to suppress their rebellion.^[2]^[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malabar_Rebellion

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:01 pm

the purpose of my recent posts in this thread is two-fold:

(a) to show that the history of islam in kerala and TN pre-dates that in northindia (from which it is separate and distinct) by many centuries. it is rooted in the south and soaked in the local languages.

(b) to throw egg in the face of individuals like uppili who like to draw broad brush strokes and bury under the rug the glorious indigenous and peaceful tradition of islam in kerala and TN and portray malayali and tamil muslims as part of radical islam. you then have the job of explaining umarupulavar, m.m.ismail, a.p.j.abdul kalam and a million other individuals who are less radical islamic than uppili.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:03 pm

rishi you can always find one-off incidents. pick a group of people as unlikely as any to be violent. i bet you can come up with a violent story or two about them if you spend enough time googling. what i have said is obviously "by and large" and in comparison with islam elsewhere in india and outside india.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:36 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The Behmaani rulers are Moguls surrogates, who destroyed everything in their own Islamo-barbaric fashion. There falls your claim of Moguls' pro-hindu benevolent golden rule.

The Bahmani rulers predate the Mughals. They were descended from the pre-Mughal rulers of northindia, and were ethnically Turkic, Arab and Persian. Their record in southern India is decidedly mixed. Of the five sultanates they established in the Deccan, a couple were fairly tolerant of the culture of their subjects -- compared to other rulers around the world at that time -- while the others were not.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:55 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:(d) i do not consider the bahamanis or behmanis to be southern indian muslims. they never had any strong roots to the south, and i don't think they were ethnically southern indian like the mApiLLAs and marakkAyars. as far as i know they were offshoots or vassals of some delhi sultanate. it is not surprising to me that they brought their delhi violence with them. incidentally the term bEmAni is a derogatory madras tamil word. it means a person who is behaving like an asshole. you can guess its origin.

The Bahmanis started out as offshoots of the Delhi sultanate, but they settled down in the Deccan, like the Mughals did in northindia. I consider the later Mughals northindians, and by that token, the ruling class of the five Bahmani sultanates were southern Indian Muslims. They were not ethnically southern Indian, but most of them dropped roots there.

Some of the Golconda Qutb Shahis are remembered for their patronage of Telugu culture, including literature, music, and dance. The third of the dynasty, Ibrahim Qutb Shah, grew up to adulthood in the Vijayanagara court, and adopted the mores of the Vijayanagara court which he brought with him to Golconda. He patronized Telugu poets, who eulogized him as malkibharAmu (from Malik Ibrahim). The last of the dynasty, Abul Hasan Tanashah relied on Hindu ministers, and is said to have started a tradition that still stands today: the Golconda ruler sends the "talambrAlu" for the annual performance of the wedding of Rama and Sita at Bhadrachalam on Sri Rama Navami. He was prompted to do this when he Rama and Lakshmana appeared in his dream to repay the money that Kancharla Gopanna aka rAmadAsu had embezzled from the treasury to build the temple at Bhadrachalam. He is also remembered for giving the village of Kuchipudi as a gift to the performers of the dance form which we now know by that name.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:03 pm

BTW, I suspect the word bEmAni in Tamil is from the Urdu bE-imAni, which means lack of integrity.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:05 pm

Idéfix wrote:BTW, I suspect the word bEmAni in Tamil is from the Urdu bE-imAni, which means lack of integrity.

You know this song I guess:

by Sponsored content