4 little things that shaped India

by doofus_maximus Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:33 pm

This has been doing the FB rounds. Interesting read although the author exaggerates the effects of these incidents. Nevertheless very interesting. History buffs in our midst will find it orgasmic.

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:51 pm

the facts are interesting, but i found the analysis and conclusions childish.

by artood2 Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:49 pm

The facts are interesting but not complete. analysis and conclusions are all over the place.

India has a history of invasions. Some of them were really barbaric. Some assimilated, some left but things continued. Chenghiz Khan could not have wiped out the whole Indian civilization. some of the numbers mentioned there seem out of place. They have mentioned millions dead. Just to give you a context, the population of Mongolia now is around 3 million.

Siraj-ud-Daullah's battle of plassey point is very simplistic. the fact is he was a young Nawab who was pissing people off left and right and they worked actively to defeat him. His army was huge and if they had ran in the other direction they would have crushed the English army (I do not have sources to corroborate that, treat it as hearsay).

There are a whole bunch of incidents that could have changed the course of history. I am not really impressed.

by Kayalvizhi Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:18 pm

Interesting history of the northern parts of south asia.

Tamil Country (Tamil Nadu) did not see these invasions except for less than a dozen years under some muslim invaders. Want to kow more about Tamil Nadu?

http://www.tamiltribune.com/01/1201.html

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:30 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:Interesting history of the northern parts of south asia.

Tamil Country (Tamil Nadu) did not see these invasions except for less than a dozen years under some muslim invaders. Want to kow more about Tamil Nadu?

http://www.tamiltribune.com/01/1201.html

Ha ha. What about Nawabs of Arcot?

by Kayalvizhi Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:34 pm

>> What about Nawabs of Arcot?

they are local muslim chieftans, not mugal invaders from far north. these nawabs have localized.

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:37 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> What about Nawabs of Arcot?

they are local muslim chieftans, not mugal invaders from far north. these nawabs have localized.

Was their court language Tamil? Was their mother language Tamil?

lol!

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:41 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> What about Nawabs of Arcot?

they are local muslim chieftans, not mugal invaders from far north. these nawabs have localized.

The Nawabdom of the Carnatic was established by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, who in 1692 appointed Zulfiqar Ali Khan as the first Nawab of the Carnatic, with his seat at Arcot as a reward for his victory over the renegade Marathas led by Rajaram.[2] With the Vijayanagara Empire in serious decline, the Nawabdom of the Carnatic controlled a vast territory south of the Krishna river.

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

-------

Sad to know that you are ignorant about the history of Tamil Nadu.

by Kayalvizhi Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:46 pm

nawabs did not take orders from north. they ruled as independent rulers.

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:03 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:nawabs did not take orders from north. they ruled as independent rulers.

This is like saying that the mughals in north india ruled as independent rulers and that they did not take orders from turkey or iran or central asia (samarkand, farghana, etc.).

it is enough that the first nawab was a mughal governor and the nawabs became independent only after the death of Aurangzeb when the mughal empire collapsed. Furthermore, Tamil was *not* the court language of the Nawabs of Arcot, nor was Tamil the mother tongue of the Nawabs of Arcot.

by Kayalvizhi Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:22 pm

this is what i posted first on this threaf. True

"Tamil Country (Tamil Nadu) did not see these invasions except for less than a dozen years under some muslim invaders."

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:26 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:this is what i posted first on this threaf. True

"Tamil Country (Tamil Nadu) did not see these invasions except for less than a dozen years under some muslim invaders."

you then went on to make the false claim:

"they are local muslim chieftans, not mugal invaders from far north. these nawabs have localized."

------
the first nawab was a mughal governor. he can be compared to the first mughal ruler of delhi. further, your claim that these 'nawabs have localized' is questionable considering that their court language was not tamil nor was their mother tongue tamil.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:36 pm

the arcot nawabs' influence on tamilians is negligible. in any case, the more interesting trading history of islam in TN and kerala was a mostly peaceful one. as a result hindu tamilians do not share the blood lust of some northindian hindus for northindian muslims.

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:59 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the arcot nawabs' influence on tamilians is negligible. in any case, the more interesting trading history of islam in TN and kerala was a mostly peaceful one. as a result hindu tamilians do not share the blood lust of some northindian hindus for northindian muslims.

--> In my experience there are communal and secular people all over India. There exist virulently anti-muslim people in tamil nadu just as they exist in other parts of India.

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:11 pm

David Abbot, the Acting British Deputy High Commissioner in South
India, who presided, said the history of the Nawabs was closely linked
to the history of Tamil Nadu.

Noting the Prince of Arcot's service to the community and his interest
in the promotion of communal harmony, he said the need for such service
was very important at this juncture.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/08/19/stories/2004081908611200.htm

by Kayalvizhi Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:18 pm

>> Prince of Arcot

Prince? I am the queen of Jamaica!

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:27 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> Prince of Arcot

Prince? I am the queen of Jamaica!

http://www.princeofarcot.org/

what is the link to your official website?

by Kayalvizhi Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:03 am

>> what is the link to your official website?

www.queenof jamaika.nuts

by Guest Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:06 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> what is the link to your official website?

www.queenof jamaika.nuts

--> Have you lost it?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:57 am

artood2 wrote:The facts are interesting but not complete. analysis and conclusions are all over the place.

India has a history of invasions. Some of them were really barbaric. Some assimilated, some left but things continued. Chenghiz Khan could not have wiped out the whole Indian civilization. some of the numbers mentioned there seem out of place. They have mentioned millions dead. Just to give you a context, the population of Mongolia now is around 3 million.

Siraj-ud-Daullah's battle of plassey point is very simplistic. the fact is he was a young Nawab who was pissing people off left and right and they worked actively to defeat him. His army was huge and if they had ran in the other direction they would have crushed the English army (I do not have sources to corroborate that, treat it as hearsay).

There are a whole bunch of incidents that could have changed the course of history. I am not really impressed.

Did you meet a couple of descendants of Siraj-ud-Daullah on a bus ?

by artood2 Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:26 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
artood2 wrote:The facts are interesting but not complete. analysis and conclusions are all over the place.

India has a history of invasions. Some of them were really barbaric. Some assimilated, some left but things continued. Chenghiz Khan could not have wiped out the whole Indian civilization. some of the numbers mentioned there seem out of place. They have mentioned millions dead. Just to give you a context, the population of Mongolia now is around 3 million.

Siraj-ud-Daullah's battle of plassey point is very simplistic. the fact is he was a young Nawab who was pissing people off left and right and they worked actively to defeat him. His army was huge and if they had ran in the other direction they would have crushed the English army (I do not have sources to corroborate that, treat it as hearsay).

There are a whole bunch of incidents that could have changed the course of history. I am not really impressed.

Did you meet a couple of descendants of Siraj-ud-Daullah on a bus ?

Nah thats what my history teacher used to say but I don't have much confidence in him Smile

by artood2 Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:31 am

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Battle_of_Plassey#Troops

The British army was vastly outnumbered, consisting of 2,200 Europeans and 800 native Indians and a small number of guns. The Nawab had an army of about 50,000 with some heavy artillery operated by about 40 French soldiers sent by the French East India Company.

by doofus_maximus Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:05 am

Passage below lists the two main reasons they lost. My take is, it was a bunch of novices taking on the hardened Brits and combining with treachery of Mir Jafar, the result was a foregone conclusion.

Whether a loss in this battle would have driven away British East India company is different matter altogether.

he battle opened on a very hot and humid morning at 7:00 a.m. on June
23, 1757, where the Nawab's army came out of its fortified camp and
launched a massive cannonade against the British camp. The eighteenth
century historian, Ghulam Husain Salim, describes what followed:
<blockquote>
Mīr Muhammad Jafar Khān, with his detachment, stood at a distance
towards the left from the main army; and although Sirāju-d-daulah
summoned him to his side, Mīr Jafar did not move from his position. In
the thick of the fighting, and in the heat of the work of carnage,
whilst victory and triumph were visible on the side of the army of
Sirāju-d-daulah, all of a sudden Mīr Madan, commander of the Artillery,
fell on being hit with a cannon-ball. At the sight of this, the aspect
of Sirāju-d-daulah’s army changed, and the artillerymen with the corpse
of Mīr Madan moved into tents. It was now midday, when the people of the
tents fled. As yet Nawāb Sirāju-d-daulah was busy fighting and
slaughtering, when the camp-followers decamping from Dāūdpūr went the
other side, and gradually the soldiers also took to their heels. Two
hours before sun-set, flight occurred in Sirāju-d-daulah’s army, and
Sirāju-d-daulah also being unable to stand his ground any longer fled.^[5]

</blockquote>
At around 11:00 a.m., Mir Madan, one of the Nawab's most loyal
officers, launched an attack against the fortified grove where the East
Indian Company was located, and was mortally wounded by a British
cannonball. This cannonade was essentially futile in any case; the
British guns had greater range than those of the French.

At noon, a heavy rainstorm fell on the battlefield, wherein the
tables were turned. The British covered their cannons and muskets for
protection from the rain, whereas the French did not.

As a result, the cannonade ceased by 2:00 p.m. and the battle resumed
where Clive's chief officer, Kilpatrick, launched an attack against the
water ponds in between the armies. With their cannons and muskets
completely useless, and with Mir Jafar's cavalry who were closest to the
English, refusing to attack Clive's camp, revealing his treachery, the
Nawab was forced to order a retreat.

By 5:00 p.m., the Nawab's army was in full retreat and the British had command of the field.

The battle cost the British East India Company just 22 killed and 50
wounded (most of these were native sepoys), while the Nawab's army lost
at least 500 men killed and wounded.^[6]

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:19 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:This has been doing the FB rounds. Interesting read although the author exaggerates the effects of these incidents. Nevertheless very interesting. History buffs in our midst will find it orgasmic.

It is really funny. The numbers and precision about the incidents might have gotten fudged, but the writer is just listing 4 basically true incidents - which according to him - changed India's history. Funny is his analysis on what COULD have happened if these 4 incidents had not happened.

Each of us can identify our own list of incidents as responsible. According to me four people are responsible for India's development:

Rashmunullah, Bittu, Blabberwock, and Padre AKA Mburuburu

by Hellsangel Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:21 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Each of us can identify our own list of incidents as responsible. According to me four people are responsible for India's development:

Rashmunullah, Bittu, Blabberwock, and Padre AKA Mburuburu

Explain.

by Guest Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:25 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Each of us can identify our own list of incidents as responsible. According to me four people are responsible for India's development:

Rashmunullah, Bittu, Blabberwock, and Padre AKA Mburuburu

Explain.

q-bot?

by doofus_maximus Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:12 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
doofus_maximus wrote:This has been doing the FB rounds. Interesting read although the author exaggerates the effects of these incidents. Nevertheless very interesting. History buffs in our midst will find it orgasmic.

It is really funny. The numbers and precision about the incidents might have gotten fudged, but the writer is just listing 4 basically true incidents - which according to him - changed India's history. Funny is his analysis on what COULD have happened if these 4 incidents had not happened.

Each of us can identify our own list of incidents as responsible. According to me four people are responsible for India's development:

Rashmunullah, Bittu, Blabberwock, and Padre AKA Mburuburu

Alternative history scenarios like these are just imaginative exercises. No one should believe that this the path history would have taken.

by Guest Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:38 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
doofus_maximus wrote:This has been doing the FB rounds. Interesting read although the author exaggerates the effects of these incidents. Nevertheless very interesting. History buffs in our midst will find it orgasmic.

It is really funny. The numbers and precision about the incidents might have gotten fudged, but the writer is just listing 4 basically true incidents - which according to him - changed India's history. Funny is his analysis on what COULD have happened if these 4 incidents had not happened.

Each of us can identify our own list of incidents as responsible. According to me four people are responsible for India's development:

Rashmunullah, Bittu, Blabberwock, and Padre AKA Mburuburu

Alternative history scenarios like these are just imaginative exercises. No one should believe that this the path history would have taken.

--> not just the alternative scenarios, the entire analysis was complete rubbish.

by doofus_maximus Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:52 pm

Instead of dismissing it by saying it is rubbish, can you point out to the fallacies in his arguments.
Are you saying his retelling of the history is wrong?

Like how R2D2 provided a link about battle of Plassey with the relative strengths of each army and reasons for the Nawab's loss in the battle. There are still 3 remaining issues which need your attention.

by Guest Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:07 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:Instead of dismissing it by saying it is rubbish, can you point out to the fallacies in his arguments.
Are you saying his retelling of the history is wrong?

Like how R2D2 provided a link about battle of Plassey with the relative strengths of each army and reasons for the Nawab's loss in the battle. There are still 3 remaining issues which need your attention.

consider the first example of Iltutmish refusing to give shelter to another muslim king. the idiot seems to think that it was a case of muslim-muslim bhai bhai in the medieval world. first, there were many examples of muslim kings attacking and even killing other muslim kings (the same was true for hindu kings and christian kings); or of muslim kings plundering the kingdoms of other muslim kings (same was true for hindu and christian kings). like when Timur (Tamerlane) attacked and plundered Baghdad. Or when Shaibani Khan chased Babur out of his central asian homeland (Samarkand and Farghana). Or when the King of Persia fought with and killed Shaibani Khan. Or when Babur defeated and killed Ibrahim Lodhi for the throne of Delhi.

Babur took shelter for some time when he was first driven out of his Central Asian homeland with the King of Persia. The help solicited was given but there was a condition: Babur would have to give up being a sunni and would have to become a shia (the Shah of Persia was a Shia). When Babur returned to Samarkand with the help of the Persian king he found that the people of his kingdom liked him, but they did not like the fact that he was outwardly at least professing to be a shia (wearing a cap like the shias would wear it and so forth) and they were hostile to being ruled by a Shia. This may have been a factor in why he eventually had to leave his Central Asian homeland for good.

Even if Chingiz Khan would have attacked and plundered India, he could not possibly have destroyed Indian civilization. India was too big for that. In fact Timur (Tamerlane) attacked and plundered Delhi and went back but then what happened? India (or i should say the parts of India which felt the impact of Timur's invasion) bounced back to normalcy fairly soon. If Chingiz Khan would have penetrated deep into India, he would have been in big trouble because his lines of supply would be over extended and he would have ended up becoming another Napoleon.

by charvaka Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:35 am

doofus_maximus wrote:This has been doing the FB rounds. Interesting read although the author exaggerates the effects of these incidents. Nevertheless very interesting. History buffs in our midst will find it orgasmic.

This was an entertaining read. The writer obviously revels in painting historical characters in larger-than-life terms. Looks like his treatment of Humayun and his tribe has touched some raw nerves.

There is a grain of truth at the heart of all four stories, but these are by no means the four most important little things that shaped India. I am glad the Gurdaspur thing made it here -- I wrote a trivia question based on what I had read years ago in Freedom at Midnight, and I am glad it has been written about in more detail and color.

by doofus_maximus Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:38 am

Rashmun wrote:
doofus_maximus wrote:Instead of dismissing it by saying it is rubbish, can you point out to the fallacies in his arguments.
Are you saying his retelling of the history is wrong?

Like how R2D2 provided a link about battle of Plassey with the relative strengths of each army and reasons for the Nawab's loss in the battle. There are still 3 remaining issues which need your attention.

consider the first example of Iltutmish refusing to give shelter to another muslim king. the idiot seems to think that it was a case of muslim-muslim bhai bhai in the medieval world. first, there were many examples of muslim kings attacking and even killing other muslim kings (the same was true for hindu kings and christian kings); or of muslim kings plundering the kingdoms of other muslim kings (same was true for hindu and christian kings). like when Timur (Tamerlane) attacked and plundered Baghdad. Or when Shaibani Khan chased Babur out of his central asian homeland (Samarkand and Farghana). Or when the King of Persia fought with and killed Shaibani Khan. Or when Babur defeated and killed Ibrahim Lodhi for the throne of Delhi.

Babur took shelter for some time when he was first driven out of his Central Asian homeland with the King of Persia. The help solicited was given but there was a condition: Babur would have to give up being a sunni and would have to become a shia (the Shah of Persia was a Shia). When Babur returned to Samarkand with the help of the Persian king he found that the people of his kingdom liked him, but they did not like the fact that he was outwardly at least professing to be a shia (wearing a cap like the shias would wear it and so forth) and they were hostile to being ruled by a Shia. This may have been a factor in why he eventually had to leave his Central Asian homeland for good.

Even if Chingiz Khan would have attacked and plundered India, he could not possibly have destroyed Indian civilization. India was too big for that. In fact Timur (Tamerlane) attacked and plundered Delhi and went back but then what happened? India (or i should say the parts of India which felt the impact of Timur's invasion) bounced back to normalcy fairly soon. If Chingiz Khan would have penetrated deep into India, he would have been in big trouble because his lines of supply would be over extended and he would have ended up becoming another Napoleon.

Thanks Rashmun. I enjoyed reading your take on it.

by Propagandhi711 Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:08 am

doofus_maximus wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
doofus_maximus wrote:Instead of dismissing it by saying it is rubbish, can you point out to the fallacies in his arguments.
Are you saying his retelling of the history is wrong?

Like how R2D2 provided a link about battle of Plassey with the relative strengths of each army and reasons for the Nawab's loss in the battle. There are still 3 remaining issues which need your attention.

consider the first example of Iltutmish refusing to give shelter to another muslim king. the idiot seems to think that it was a case of muslim-muslim bhai bhai in the medieval world. first, there were many examples of muslim kings attacking and even killing other muslim kings (the same was true for hindu kings and christian kings); or of muslim kings plundering the kingdoms of other muslim kings (same was true for hindu and christian kings). like when Timur (Tamerlane) attacked and plundered Baghdad. Or when Shaibani Khan chased Babur out of his central asian homeland (Samarkand and Farghana). Or when the King of Persia fought with and killed Shaibani Khan. Or when Babur defeated and killed Ibrahim Lodhi for the throne of Delhi.

Babur took shelter for some time when he was first driven out of his Central Asian homeland with the King of Persia. The help solicited was given but there was a condition: Babur would have to give up being a sunni and would have to become a shia (the Shah of Persia was a Shia). When Babur returned to Samarkand with the help of the Persian king he found that the people of his kingdom liked him, but they did not like the fact that he was outwardly at least professing to be a shia (wearing a cap like the shias would wear it and so forth) and they were hostile to being ruled by a Shia. This may have been a factor in why he eventually had to leave his Central Asian homeland for good.

Even if Chingiz Khan would have attacked and plundered India, he could not possibly have destroyed Indian civilization. India was too big for that. In fact Timur (Tamerlane) attacked and plundered Delhi and went back but then what happened? India (or i should say the parts of India which felt the impact of Timur's invasion) bounced back to normalcy fairly soon. If Chingiz Khan would have penetrated deep into India, he would have been in big trouble because his lines of supply would be over extended and he would have ended up becoming another Napoleon.

Thanks Rashmun. I enjoyed reading your take on it.

Good morning, doofus. and congrats (for enjoying his take on it).

Yes, it was an interesting read indeed. The hindu/muslim synthesis/mixing/comingling is interesting to read about. it is good that india bounced back to normal.

Also congrats to timur on avoiding the same fate as napoleon (by realizing the futility of stretched supply lines and penetrating shallowly (like a rabbit fucker)).

by Sponsored content

4 little things that shaped India

4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India

Re: 4 little things that shaped India