Sent: Fri, Oct 14, 2011 1:34 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
My point was Indians had enough sense in them and they appreciate history, art, language etc. So they kept the name that was a natural part of "India" for hundreds of years.
Also note, Muslims were not colonists. They came to India and became Indians for most parts.
My observation is that the name was given by the ancient Persians who were not Muslims. Persian language was spoken by most of the known world since the time of Sargon II, the script they used was Sanskrit.
>>>>>>>>> It would have been a valid observation but Farsi never became the state language until Muslims came to India and eventually ruled India for hundreds of years. The ancient connection you site is around 5,000 years old and never spread all over India [ Source:Linguistic history of India]. That Indo-Aryan language evolved and did sound very different than how Farsi was spoken In Iran (Which also evolved over the years!) The important point to note is Vedic-Sanskrit was never language of the people of India. The Indians were told Aryans were 'Noble" people and for thousands of years Indians adopted a culture of caste system. Where lower caste majority did not have the right to even study Sanskrit. So parts of India was known by nationality most part. Therefore, you are talking about the "Mother language" which was mother to Sankrit, Farsi and Latin as well. Over the years that language evolved and died. Like Pali did in Bengal.
Had the Persian language come from Persia by the Muslims, the Shiite would have ruled India, and not the Sunnis.
>>>>>>> Unfortunately this is another desperate attempt to "Fit" your narrative. The problem with your "Theory" is you did not notice that, many other groups of people ALSO spoke Farsi. Specifically in parts of Afghanistan (Where Mughals came from). Babur came from state of Farghana in Turkestan ( Source: BBC-religion). A large number of Farsi speakers were also Sunni Muslims. Some people from Iran also came but they were not part of "Power that ruled India".
I only commented about Farsi language NOT Iran. You assumed the rest and concluded a fiction based history.
Most of what you write about Muslims are historically or theologically flawed. Let me assure you that, there are many areas Muslim population lacks. We can be critical over those issues and it would be fair. However I do not know why it is so hard for some members to accept history and contribution of Muslims over a thousand years?
You may want to double check facts before you part your "Wisdom" about Islam or Indian history. That will give you some credibility.
May you have a nice day!
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 13, 2011 5:23 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
Not really. I am aware of the common root of Sanskrit and Farsi. Both were spoken by the same Eurasian group that eventually settled in Iran and northern India (Thousands of years ago).
HOWEVER after Muslims united Indian sub-continent under one leader, they also introduced a "Common language" for state affairs ( Darbari language) . That was Farsi.
Before than time, both Sankrit and Farsi were language of scholars ONLY. As you know even Bangla was looked at as a language of the peasants. Sanskrit was the language of scholars. You must know only Brahmins were "allowed" to touch Veda or even listen to Veda. If a non-Brahmin person even listen to the "Slokas" of Veda, strong punishments were prescribed for those people ( In Manu).
For example many Kashmiri Hindus have Farsi names. I knew a man who's name is "Kaposh-e-Khuda". He is not only a Hindu, his father was in Indian military.
Farsi was very popular language not only in India but also in central Asian countries for along time. That is why we see Farsi names in many countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ujbekistan, Tajkistan, Hindustan etc.
I am not saying what you said is wrong but without giving "Proper" context may mislead average people to a very different conclusion.
Peace!
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 9, 2011 9:19 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
The British only built upon the central Delhi concept ( In fact they went back from Kolkata to Delhi) of the Muslims and modern Indians kept that system.
Most importantly when Hindus and Muslims were (Our forefathers) fighting the British Raj to kick them out of India in favor of Bahadur Shah Jafar, were those Hindus did not have the enough common sense in working for another foreign power? Why leaders of Hindu and Muslim communities found an unifying leader in Bahadur Shah Jafar IF Mughals were seen as foreigners?
Probably my knowledge is not as rich as yours, please share your wisdom with us. ;-)
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, October 7, 2011, 6:55 PM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Tagore wrote Jana Gana Mana For Lord Krishna - Logically Proved.
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2011, 7:37 PM
__._,_.___
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Saturday, October 15, 2011
[ALOCHONA] Fwd: [mukto-mona] Would India be better off without British rule?
Please post it...
---
The basic point is whether Muslims named India as Hindustan or not. Your comment was that they did so.
>>>>>>> Nope. What I said the name "Hindustan" was formed after Muslims came to India and Farsi became the "State language" of India for hundreds of years. The name was chosen naturally by Indians (Muslims, Hindus, others etc). Farsi was not a state language before Muslims came to India. India did not even exist in present form. It was small nation states constantly fighting with each other (Which was the norm back then all over the world).
-----Original Message-----
The basic point is whether Muslims named India as Hindustan or not. Your comment was that they did so. My observation is that the name was given by the ancient Persians who were not Muslims. Persian language was spoken by most of the known world since the time of Sargon II, the script they used was Sanskrit. This was later replaced by Kufic as the Assyrians rose to power and swept the world. Aramaic, Arabic and other languages developed on the base of the Assyrian language. Bangla in the present form was developed by the missionaries at Serampore, Vidyasagar etc. Before that it was indeed a tribal language and treated as the language of low class uneducated people for good reasons. Remember,"Bhasayang Manaba Shruta Rourabang Narakang Brajet" For the level of interaction between India and abroad, I suggest the interested persons to read India and the World Civilization - Singhal. Had the Persian language come from Persia by the Muslims, the Shiite would have ruled India, and not the Sunnis.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:40 PM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
That is another rubbish, Mr. Rahman. India and Persia had been interacting since the ancient times. Veda and Avesta are alike. Sind had been the most resourceful Persian colony. Even the Persian language is old Sanskrit.
lol
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 7:33 am
That is another rubbish, Mr. Rahman. India and Persia had been interacting since the ancient times. Veda and Avesta are alike. Sind had been the most resourceful Persian colony. Even the Persian language is old Sanskrit.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:28 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
Most of the Persian "Influence" came with Muslims. Now you know.
-----Original Message-----
"Specifically if you understand that, the name "Hindustan" was given by Muslims. " Were the ancient Persians Muslims too? I did not know that!
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:23 AM, qar <qrahman@aim.com> wrote:
India had been already under foreign rulers for more than 500 years when British came in. I would feel ashamed to defend British rule had they occupied an independent India. Unfortunately, that was not the situation. I am trying to arrive at a logical conclusion, not emotional one.
>>>>>>>> help me understand your point here. So what India showcases today to the world the Taj mahal, Agra Fort, Jantar mantar, palaces are all "foreign"? Specifically if you understand that, the name "Hindustan" was given by Muslims. Also the modern India ( Which is the battle cry of fanatic Hindutva movement----Akhanda Bharat) is a creation of Mughal empire. Before them, India consistrd of small nation states often fighting with each other.
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
SB Said :
"I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?"
Response:
We can be ashamed as much as we want, but that will not change the fact, and the fact is - India is better off today because of British rule, instead of Mughal rule. I have no shame to admit this fact. We have to judge the situation with proper context, and that is - India had been already under foreign rulers for more than 500 years when British came in. I would feel ashamed to defend British rule had they occupied an independent India. Unfortunately, that was not the situation. I am trying to arrive at a logical conclusion, not emotional one.
Thanks.
Jiten Roy
All indications point to India staying more backward without the British rule.
The Mughals probably would have made India what the Muslim-ruled countries of the world look like today - deduct the oil-wealth. The little Hindu kings probably would have either gotten extinct, or kept licking the boots of the Mughal kings while feeling superior to their desperately poor low-caste co-religionists. The mass population of all religions would probably be quite miserable today. There is no reason to believe that without the British the Hindus would be as good today in terms of their caste-system and treatment of the women.
Having said all this, I would not jump into the praise-squad for the British. The British certainly did not do anything out of their love for the Indians.
I think this topic should be more about our own soul-searching. Shouldn't we feel ashamed to think that we are better today because of a foreign rule? Shouldn't we feel embarrassed to think that our loving forefathers were of too poor quality to advance us as much as what a sucking foreign ruling class did?
More later,
Sukhamaya Bain
From: Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
Pre-British history of India is not well-known. That is a blind-spot in the Indian history. We know intricate details about British era, but not much about Mughal era. It could be due to lack of documentation or resources at the time. British ruled many other parts of the world, including part of North America, which fought a full-fledged battle against British. How come they do not have such strong resentment against British? How come other parts of the world, ruled by British, also do not possess such sentiment against them as Indians do? Indians tend to blame everything on British rule. We blame British for our thinking, we blame British for our administrative bureaucracy, we blame British for our education system, judicial system, communication system, etc. etc.
I know what happened in 1919 during the Jallianwallabag massacre, in which British troops opened fire on unarmed civilians in a mass gathering, protesting British rule. This was the time when Gandhi started his anti-British movement, and that's the price we paid to force British out of India. How much price Indians paid during Mughal rule, especially during Babar and Awrangzeb? Anybody has a clue? That is not my point of discussion. My point is - would India be better off without British rule? Let's extrapolate continued Moghal rule for another 200 years and contrast it with the India left behind by British rulers, and analyze the situation. I will appreciate your inputs on this point.
Jiten Roy --- On Wed, 10/5/11, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
JitenDa
When you believe that "I am thankful to British for their help in rebuilding India with their modern amenities, education systems, and judiciaries. Yes, they took some wealth back to England. Why not? You do not expect everything for free. Do you? After all, they came to India for business and occupied India for 200 years. They could have taken everything without investing a penny in India", I must say that Singh is right when he/she says that "our (please read 'your') thoughts are still controlled by British."
They did not do any thing out of love for the Indians. Every thing good we got was spillovers. Colonial exploitation was endless. Please reflect on what you have read from a typical history book. Think about indigo and poppy cultivation. Think how they put Tajmahal on auction to sell expensive stones after robbing all the gold and other precious metals and stones. Think about Jalianwalabag massacre, the way they retalitaed the sepoy mutiny, and countless other mischiefs. They did only that much as was necessay to carry out their business. Think about in what conditions they left India before running away.
Your comment or love for British rule is not surprising as many among us cherish the same view. That's why it is really thought provoking and as such can be a good topic for debate.
Think about a scenario: British did not colonize India. Where would India stand today? Did India really need a colonial master to be what she is today? Could she be better?
Please, everybody, put ypour inputs.
Regards.
-Subimal
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional