Foreign Invasions on India in Medieval Times - Causes, Events and their Impact

[vdhillon]

Even most Islamic states see "Radical Islam" as single largest threat to the world peace.
Not all muslims are terrorists but why islam is more prone to radicalization and why majority of the terrorists are radicalized muslims (ref: 11 year long empirical GLOBAL study done by Terrorism Research Center that collected data on 20,000+ terror attacks and majority of the RELIGIOUS TERROR ATTACKS (excluding non-religious ones) were by Islamists, see the diagram in the link http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nctc.jpg).

Being secular does not mean closing the eyes to the empirical facts. Being secular also does not mean respecting the WRONG KIND of belief systems in the guise of mutual respect. Being secular means pursuing a RATIONAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE-BASED INQUIRY and RESPECTING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH but still having courage to speak up against the irrational faiths-based belief-systems (e.g. institutionalized religions).

We mus respect the differences in a civilized manner but must still refute the lies that religions churn out, must challenge the distorted history taught to us in the name of secularism because then rulers thought we are violent savages who will kill each other in sectarian and religious violence if we are taught the TRUE history, thats an insult to intellect to the masses, curriculum needs revision to one which is based on historical facts. We can still inculcate unity in diversity values without lending silent support to lies taught to us in doctored "so-called secular curriculum". Religious rants need to be countered to expose their falsehood otherwise we are silently helping them perpetuate their unscientific belief system/religions.

 

[swaich]

Even most Islamic states see "Radical Islam" as single largest threat to the world peace.
Not all muslims are terrorists but why islam is more prone to radicalization and why majority of the terrorists are radicalized muslims (ref: 11 year long empirical GLOBAL study done by Terrorism Research Center that collected data on 20,000+ terror attacks and majority of the RELIGIOUS TERROR ATTACKS (excluding non-religious ones) were by Islamists, see the diagram in the link http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nctc.jpg).

Being secular does not mean closing the eyes to the empirical facts. Being secular also does not mean respecting the WRONG KIND of belief systems in the guise of mutual respect. Being secular means pursuing a RATIONAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE-BASED INQUIRY and RESPECTING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH but still having courage to speak up against the irrational faiths-based belief-systems (e.g. institutionalized religions).

We mus respect the differences in a civilized manner but must still refute the lies that religions churn out, must challenge the distorted history taught to us in the name of secularism because then rulers thought we are violent savages who will kill each other in sectarian and religious violence if we are taught the TRUE history, thats an insult to intellect to the masses, curriculum needs revision to one which is based on historical facts. We can still inculcate unity in diversity values without lending silent support to lies taught to us in doctored "so-called secular curriculum". Religious rants need to be countered to expose their falsehood otherwise we are silently helping them perpetuate their unscientific belief system/religions.

What is this distorted and secular history that you are referring to? I remember reading about the religion influenced destruction by Ghazni, Aurangzeb etc in school text books. Is there a falsification?

In any case, in today's open, internet enabled world, its hard to keep anything under wraps or just propagate one school of thought for long. Alternate histories and narratives (oops, wrong word I guess ) abound.

 

[vdhillon]

No falsification in those. In the annals of Indian history, popularly paddled by the govt in the garb of secular ethos, even iconoclast tyrants like Gzani, Aurangzeb, even so called Akbar the great are given "tolerant' credentials by citing stray examples, while hiding mountain of evidence of their destruction of temples, forced conversion, religious oppression and so on. Even if it gets a mention in the official books (educational institutes, etc), it is merely in passing.

What is this distorted and secular history that you are referring to? I remember reading about the religion influenced destruction by Ghazni, Aurangzeb etc in school text books. Is there a falsification?

In any case, in today's open, internet enabled world, its hard to keep anything under wraps or just propagate one school of thought for long. Alternate histories and narratives (oops, wrong word I guess ) abound.

 

[vdhillon]

Agree with Sahij, ... those who do not learn from the history are bound to repeat it.

Those cases of imposition of jajia, etc were not stray incidences. Most of the Islamic sultanates throughout their rule, barring some exceptions for the short period of time, had the jajia until their rule became so weak that they were no longer able to impose it. Even during the times the removed jajia, it was due to political compulsions, not due not their respect for the Hindus. Denial of well documented verifiable facts is one thing by being Ostrich with head buried in the sand, but it is entirely deplorable to gloss over those ugly and uncomfortable facts perpetuate distorted history.

Sir, this is exactly rhetorical. You rightly point out that these are facts which cannot be denied - because there is overwhelming evidence to support them, otherwise you would happily deny it, I feel. The wording used by you, viz. "heterogeneous incidents/events that spread over thousands of years" is in itself a conclusive proof that these were not isolated incidents, but were concerted efforts of Muslims (often) not linked by bonds of kinship and/or even continuity in time but by their religion - which makes it even more serious threat and increases its severity manyfold - to subdue and subjugate Hindus, and everybody else on this planet.

What this means is that forces of Islam can wait for considerable amount of time, before their adversary gets soft, relaxed and reluctant to drive them out, and then another bunch of people (totally unrelated, probably related only by religion may be), carry on the agenda left unfinished by their predecessors in the past. Of course all this resonates with what is written in their religious texts, and tallies with times and actions of no less but Muhammad himself.




Clearly, neither during Mahabharata, nor in Kalinga war there was any religious connotation to any of the events. So the comparison stops there! And Sir, which two sides are you refering to by the word both? Clearly there were no two sides, Muslims invaded and destroyed Hindu lives, property and temples. Please give me instances where Hindus went to Muslim countries to cause destruction. If fighting for one's own life is called "butchering others" - than I very much lose faith in such an intellect being capable of doing impartial and just review of history.




Sir, you are taking apologetics to a new level. Next thing you will say is that it is the gun that murdered and should be hanged instead of the accused.




Sir, all this is rhetorical in nature. You have your own world view (read communist world view) and you imagine the world to be according to that, I can see you using the words "could easily be imagined". But what is easily imaginable in your mind, is not so easily imaginable in the minds of other sceptical and not so fertile readers of history. I for one cannot imagine, that Hindus, whose land, property, and valuables have been looted + whose daughters, sisters, and mothers have been defiled, and often enslaved and sent to Arabia + whose religious places have been desecrated, idols and icons destroyed and placed on stepping stones of mosques so that they can be trod upon, etc. would line up to live "amicably" and stand by with Muslims "in the hour of need." To my imaginative mind all the above that you have said seems like a fantasy world with an absolute disconnect with the real world. Indeed I can quote what al-Baruni said regarding feelings of Hindus about their Muslim "brothers".

Please get out of your utopian socialist world, and try to live in reality, and stop being an armchair historian. There is a class of people, who sing praises of the same person who holds them by the scruff of their necks, and has a knife on their throats. I frankly think such people can never be reformed, and can never be brought out of their 10-by-10 studio apartments where everything is great and hunky-dory. Wasting time over such people, if I may say so, trying to convince them is hardly productive use of one's time. Instead society at large should be told the truth, and must be alarmed against dangers of Islam.

Muslims are a bane to society not only in India, but world over. No continent (except for may be Antarctica) has been left where they haven't left their terror trail and indelible mark on local civilization. They are hated everywhere - in every country where they are not a majority. Jihad and uncontrolled child birth to increase their population are two hallmarks of Muslims - and both are a threat to every other peaceloving community on this planet.

So nobody is trying to right a wrong done in history, they are clearly a very real and existential threat to the very existence of Hindustan/Bharatvarsa as a diverse, liberal Hindu nation of multiple faiths, and indeed to the whole wide world.

 

[swaich]

No falsification in those. In the annals of Indian history, popularly paddled by the govt in the garb of secular ethos, even iconoclast tyrants like Gzani, Aurangzeb, even so called Akbar the great are given "tolerant' credentials by citing stray examples, while hiding mountain of evidence of their destruction of temples, forced conversion, religious oppression and so on. Even if it gets a mention in the official books (educational institutes, etc), it is merely in passing.

Ghazni was probably the furthest from tolerance and Aurangzeb was no angel. But how was Akbar intolerant?

 

[vdhillon]

Once we start looking beyond what we have been spoon fed in the distorted Sick-Ullu-rist history, we can find a mountain of evidence of Akbar's Jehadist agenda as documented by Akbar's own co-religionist Islamic and contemporary writers. He did have some good policies, but he was driven by political compulsions and ambitions and was smart enough to forge ties with non-muslims through more tolerant attitude without completely giving up his Jehadist leanings. SELECTIVE TOLERANCE CAN NOT HIDE THE MOUNTAIN OF INTOLERANCE AND DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES BY AKBAR. Start the research here and then work your way through more sources.
http://creative.sulekha.com/think-twice-before-describing-emperor-akbar-as-moderate_363032_blog

The hazy world of Pseudo-secular ... ignorance is a bliss ... but truth will set me free

Ghazni was probably the furthest from tolerance and Aurangzeb was no angel. But how was Akbar intolerant?

 

[drrajpalsingh]

An appeal - Kindly take time to read and then act

This thread as you know does not relate to general discussion, kindly do not make sweeping statements lasting over several centuries in one go. You all are welcome to discuss the issues taking up one after another ruler/invader/invaded foreign or indigenous. Support your arguments with available evidence and only then draw some sort of tangible conclusions.

Kindly avoid spreading unwarranted controversies and ill drawn conclusions only in the name of imaginative narratives and thus defeating the very purpose of educative value of the thread theme. Hope all of us have common purpose in this discussion to try to understand history in its proper perspective.

Kindly bear in mind that none can undo the past happenings/events today. So try to grasp the reality of those times as much as possible so as to avoid the wrong doings of those persons who committed them and try to assimilate good done by others, if possible.

This can only be done by studying the events/ the activities of the persons involved in those events and the objective conditions of those periods. None can judge the past on the basis of present day happenings.

If you have solid evidences derived from contemporary or near contemporary sources and your arguments are supported by historical facts, put them with the supportive evidence before the readers and intellectual level of discussion may be maintained while arguing and counter-arguing point of view expressed in the posts not the persons who present them.

Avoid unbridled hate campaign against present generations of mankind, please !

Hope all will cooperate.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Even most Islamic states see "Radical Islam" as single largest threat to the world peace.
Not all muslims are terrorists but why islam is more prone to radicalization and why majority of the terrorists are radicalized muslims (ref: 11 year long empirical GLOBAL study done by Terrorism Research Center that collected data on 20,000+ terror attacks and majority of the RELIGIOUS TERROR ATTACKS (excluding non-religious ones) were by Islamists, see the diagram in the link http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nctc.jpg).

Being secular does not mean closing the eyes to the empirical facts. Being secular also does not mean respecting the WRONG KIND of belief systems in the guise of mutual respect. Being secular means pursuing a RATIONAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE-BASED INQUIRY and RESPECTING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH but still having courage to speak up against the irrational faiths-based belief-systems (e.g. institutionalized religions).

We mus respect the differences in a civilized manner but must still refute the lies that religions churn out, must challenge the distorted history taught to us in the name of secularism because then rulers thought we are violent savages who will kill each other in sectarian and religious violence if we are taught the TRUE history, thats an insult to intellect to the masses, curriculum needs revision to one which is based on historical facts. We can still inculcate unity in diversity values without lending silent support to lies taught to us in doctored "so-called secular curriculum". Religious rants need to be countered to expose their falsehood otherwise we are silently helping them perpetuate their unscientific belief system/religions.

You are welcome to share your findings/readings of History, secular or religious but not tainted by current happenings. Before making up your mind on the basis of study of internet matter even on current happenings kindly keep your observant eyes open to read the necessary pre-cautions as given on the page of the link you have quoted above. See please :

[TABLE="class: metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content ambox-COI, width: 1"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: mbox-image, align: center"]

[/TD]
[TD="class: mbox-text"]A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may requirecleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on thetalk page. <small>(April 2014)</small>[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

 

[vdhillon]

Btw, it is worthwhile reminding the readers, Akbar did destroy temples and years later it was BAHARTPUR JATs WHO RAIDED HIS GRAVE IN AGRA AND TOOK OUT HIS BONES AND CREMATED HIS BONES...

Not withstanding wikipedia warning to that author of expose on Akbar by fellow secularist reviewers, the evidence against Akbar can not be refuted, the author has appropriately cited PRIMARY ISLAMIC SOURCES who were contemporary to Akbar (they were Akbar's own Spin doctors, his own scribes), sample this. Secularism can not be FORCED DOWN the THROAT, closing eyes to the facts to preserve harmony ... we must not automatically assume others to be uncouth uncivilized JATs who lack wits to discuss UNCOMFORTABLE CONTENTIOUS HISTORY in a peaceful manner. We can advocate peace but it must not derail the EVIDENCE-BASED INQUIRY of EVILS of AKBAR's JEHADIST AGENDA.

Sample this (copied):
"Historian Abd al-Qadir Badauni records that during Akbar"s reign at Nagarkot, nearKangra, 200 cows were slaughtered, numerous Hindus killed and a temple was demolished.

On the 1st Rajab 990 [AD 1582] Akbar"s forces encamped by a field of maize near Nagarkot. The fortress (hissãr) of Bhîm, which has an idol temple of Mahãmãî, and in which none but her servants dwelt, was taken by the valour of the assailants at the first assault. A party of Rajpûts, who had resolved to die, fought most desperately till they were all cut down. A number of Brãhmans who for many years had served the temple, never gave one thought to flight, and were killed. Nearly 200 black cows belonging to Hindûs had, during the struggle, crowded together for shelter in the temple. Some savage Turks, while the arrows and bullets were falling like rain, killed those cows. They then took off their boots and filled them with the blood and cast it upon the roof and walls of the temple."


I agree, that history should be investigated dispassionately and be seen in the context of time and place it took place ... but those who do not learn from the history they are bound to repeat the same historical mistakes.

​

 

[ravichaudhary]

Moderators must be extremely cautious, and not impose their own views on a discussion or to shape the discussion.

This topic is uncomfortable and will be uncomfortable for some.

Being uncomfortable does not mean Moderators act to impose their own views.

Unless there is personal abuse, Moderators must be extremely cautious in utilizing their deletion/editing powers

Ravi Chaudhary

 

[ravichaudhary]

The question is how Indian History has been developed and written and how it is taught to Indian students .

Quite obviously there a number of questions that arise, and have to be dealt with.

To approach this topic, a number of structured questions need to be asked.

1) What is the purpose of writing History?
2) Who is going to write it?
3) What perspectives should be included or excluded.?
4) What slant should be given to the history written?
5) What should be included in the curriculum of the schools.?


Taking these perspectives in approach, one needs to examine how the current version of Indian History has developed.

When examining the current versions, we need to examine what was the approach the authors took.

What did they exclude and why?
What did they include and why?

1. Indians have been taught, that they have no sense of History.


2. What are philosophical approaches of Christianity and Islam to their societies., and how they see the place of their version of History in shaping their societies. or other societies.


3. I suggest it would be naive to conclude that these religions have had no motivation in shaping their versions of history to shape /run/control their societies.

Did Islam ( and Christianity) shape the versions of Indian History as we read it today?

Doing that, did they whitewash their version of history to present a sanitized view?

Did post Independence Indian History teachers take a critical approach to what they were teaching?

These are fair topics for discussion and analysis.

 

[virj]

An appeal - Kindly take time to read and then act

This thread as you know does not relate to general discussion, kindly do not make sweeping statements lasting over several centuries in one go. You all are welcome to discuss the issues taking up one after another ruler/invader/invaded foreign or indigenous. Support your arguments with available evidence and only then draw some sort of tangible conclusions.

Kindly avoid spreading unwarranted controversies and ill drawn conclusions only in the name of imaginative narratives and thus defeating the very purpose of educative value of the thread theme. Hope all of us have common purpose in this discussion to try to understand history in its proper perspective.

Kindly bear in mind that none can undo the past happenings/events today. So try to grasp the reality of those times as much as possible so as to avoid the wrong doings of those persons who committed them and try to assimilate good done by others, if possible.

This can only be done by studying the events/ the activities of the persons involved in those events and the objective conditions of those periods. None can judge the past on the basis of present day happenings.

If you have solid evidences derived from contemporary or near contemporary sources and your arguments are supported by historical facts, put them with the supportive evidence before the readers and intellectual level of discussion may be maintained while arguing and counter-arguing point of view expressed in the posts not the persons who present them.

Avoid unbridled hate campaign against present generations of mankind, please !

Hope all will cooperate.

Let people express their views. You don't have to guide each thread unless there is abuse. People understand what is history and what is fiction.

 

[rkumar]

The question is how Indian History has been developed and written and how it is taught to Indian students .

Quite obviously there a number of questions that arise, and have to be dealt with.

To approach this topic, a number of structured questions need to be asked.

1) What is the purpose of writing History?
2) Who is going to write it?
3) What perspectives should be included or excluded.?
4) What slant should be given to the history written?
5) What should be included in the curriculum of the schools.?


Taking these perspectives in approach, one needs to examine how the current version of Indian History has developed.

When examining the current versions, we need to examine what was the approach the authors took.

What did they exclude and why?
What did they include and why?

1. Indians have been taught, that they have no sense of History.


2. What are philosophical approaches of Christianity and Islam to their societies., and how see they see the place of their version of History in shaping their societies.


3. I suggest it would be na�ve to conclude that these religions have had no motivation in shaping their versions of history to shape their societies.

Did Islam ( and Christianity) shape the versions of Indian History as we read it today?

Doing that did they whitewash their version of history to present a sanitized view?

Did post Independence Indian History teachers take a critical approach to what they were teaching?

These are fair topics for discussion and analysis.

Very pertinent questions. On the face of it Indian historians failed miserably on most accounts.

RK^2

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Moderators must be extremely cautious, and not impose their own views on a discussion or to shape the discussion.

This topic is uncomfortable and will be uncomfortable for some.

Being uncomfortable does not mean Moderators act to impose their own views.

Unless there is personal abuse, Moderators must be extremely cautious in utilizing their deletion/editing powers

Ravi Chaudhary

Welcome Chaudhary Sahib,

Since I had started the thread, I do not undertake editing/moderation on the thread topic. No attempt as moderator has been made to impose my views on others. Yes, I have tried to express my opinion on the issue to be taken up for discussion as per the thread theme several times.

As stated earlier, I am pre-occupied with some pressing piece of personal work, hence, no active participation for me presently.

Wish, your arrival on the scene will further stimulate and enrich the discussion in correct direction.

Thanks and regards

 

[vdhillon]

Well said sir.
We must NOT PREACH PEOPLE "WHAT TO THINK" (everyone has mind of their own and JL is no "rutta-maaro on a preset ideology/thinking" kind of classroom) ...
instead,
ENCOURAGE & TEACH ME "HOW TO THINK INDEPENDENTLY" (Introspection and Critical Analysis).

I loved your analysis. It makes readers think in a structured manner. Thanks for taking the time out to write this.

I just wish to add that no matter how contentious, uncomfortable and taboo a topic is, the HALLMARK OF A SELF-ASSURED CIVILIZED SOCIETY IS ITS ABILITY TO DISCUSS UNDISCUSSABLE TABOO-TOPICS IN A CIVILIZED CORDIAL MANNER.

Even counselors and psychologists also suggest that we must not mask or deny our true feelings, always acknowledge the negative feelings and then CHANNEL THE NEGATIVE FEELINGS (in this case history) in a POSITIVE & CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, otherwise if we hide, suppress or mask the uncomfortable feelings and issues (or history), they manifest in negative ways and bite us back.

To give a recent relevant example, colored people were oppressed under apartheid rule in South Africa. Once apartheid was replaced by a democratic rule, the new govt adopted RAINBOW NATION (rainbow of all colors/races) approach and instead of waging a vendetta against white race or pretending all was forgiven, they set up a RECONCILIATION COMMISSION where victims came forward, made VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS (how victims were hurt, gave them opportunity to vent and CONSTRUCTIVELY CHANNEL their pain, instead of pretending its gone) and perpetrators had the chance to understand the negative impact of their actions and were able to APOLOGIZE, bringing about OPEN AND HEART-FELT FORGIVENESS and CONCILIATION among the races, rather than FORCED CONCILIATION.

Other example, I can provide is, instead of feeling ashamed or just churning out rhetorical stuff, how Modi goes around and openly talks of SWACCH BHARAT (open defecation and filth in India) and BLACK MONEY (institutionalized and rampant corruption) in the international forums, he does it with self-assured confidence without being ashamed or hiding. He deals with these uncomfortable issues in such a HEAD-ON MANNER that no other leader has been able to do, in the process creating MASSIVE AWARENESS, enlisting BEST-PRACTICE support from other nations, and so on. This shows us that we can DEAL WITH SH*T IN A CLASSY MANNER. Toilets are truly more important than temples.

Lesson learnt from this is that, to preserve harmony, instead of pretending things didn't happen, we can actually confront the uncomfortable facts, learn from them, reconcile from heart. It needs maturity.

LET US ALL TRY TO GIVE THIS RESPECT TO FELLOW JATS and READERS THAT THEY POSSESS THIS MATURITY instead of "un ko dangron ki tarah set pattern ki thinking pe hakne ki bajaye". Adopting "holier than thou", "more intellectual than others" presumptive kind of attitude is INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY and DISRESPECTFUL TO THE FELLOW READERS.

The question is how Indian History has been developed and written and how it is taught to Indian students .

Quite obviously there a number of questions that arise, and have to be dealt with.

To approach this topic, a number of structured questions need to be asked.

1) What is the purpose of writing History?
2) Who is going to write it?
3) What perspectives should be included or excluded.?
4) What slant should be given to the history written?
5) What should be included in the curriculum of the schools.?


Taking these perspectives in approach, one needs to examine how the current version of Indian History has developed.

When examining the current versions, we need to examine what was the approach the authors took.

What did they exclude and why?
What did they include and why?

1. Indians have been taught, that they have no sense of History.


2. What are philosophical approaches of Christianity and Islam to their societies., and how they see the place of their version of History in shaping their societies. or other societies.


3. I suggest it would be naive to conclude that these religions have had no motivation in shaping their versions of history to shape /run/control their societies.

Did Islam ( and Christianity) shape the versions of Indian History as we read it today?

Doing that, did they whitewash their version of history to present a sanitized view?

Did post Independence Indian History teachers take a critical approach to what they were teaching?

These are fair topics for discussion and analysis.

 

[prashantacmet]

No falsification in those. In the annals of Indian history, popularly paddled by the govt in the garb of secular ethos, even iconoclast tyrants like Gzani, Aurangzeb, even so called Akbar the great are given "tolerant' credentials by citing stray examples, while hiding mountain of evidence of their destruction of temples, forced conversion, religious oppression and so on. Even if it gets a mention in the official books (educational institutes, etc), it is merely in passing.

Bhai dhillon, it has been discussed many times giving enough evidences. But pseudo seculars have turned a blind eye on that. Again they will argue with their ill-logics.

 

[prashantacmet]

You are welcome to share your findings/readings of History, secular or religious but not tainted by current happenings. Before making up your mind on the basis of study of internet matter even on current happenings kindly keep your observant eyes open to read the necessary pre-cautions as given on the page of the link you have quoted above. See please :

[TABLE="class: metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content ambox-COI, width: 1"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: mbox-image, align: center"]

[/TD]
[TD="class: mbox-text"]A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may requirecleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on thetalk page. <small>(April 2014)</small>
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Dear sir,

you are intimidating a member who is writing sane and with ample evidences. Please check your own posts, you sum up the history in just 2-3 lines , don't show any rational proof behind your theories and don't accept other people writings even if they come up with evidences. Please be kind to members and this is not a hate campaign. why we should buy your theories and see the history with your eyes? because you are a mod!!

 

[prashantacmet]

Moderators must be extremely cautious, and not impose their own views on a discussion or to shape the discussion.

This topic is uncomfortable and will be uncomfortable for some.

Being uncomfortable does not mean Moderators act to impose their own views.

Unless there is personal abuse, Moderators must be extremely cautious in utilizing their deletion/editing powers

Ravi Chaudhary

Exactly sir, but it is not happening. Freedom is being curbed down in history section

 

[drrajpalsingh]

This is no intimation but a precaution.

Agreed I am one of the moderators but you will agree that simultaneously I am one of the members of the site who started this thread. It is my duty to tell the member to avoid pitfalls and it is for him either to accept the piece of advice or reject it outright.

I have no fixed theories of history at my disposal but started the thread because I want to learn from discussion about this important part of our history from the learned participants.

I have let everyone enjoy his/her own style of expression and I have nothing against you or any of the participant in the discussion.

Would it not be better if the members turn to 'personal message' system on such issues so that the discussion is not interrupted by personal explanations and counter-explanations !

Wish a good and fruitful discussion.

Dear sir,

you are intimidating a member who is writing sane and with ample evidences. Please check your own posts, you sum up the history in just 2-3 lines , don't show any rational proof behind your theories and don't accept other people writings even if they come up with evidences. Please be kind to members and this is not a hate campaign. why we should buy your theories and see the history with your eyes? because you are a mod!!

 

[skharb]

Beware of google historians !