Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Topic: ignored India Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 06:36 |
Hyderabad was a different case because he preferred pakistan next to independance & he had his own army which let loose a rein of terror on the Hindu population which started protesting when Nizam decided to prefer Pak & his army also started raiding the adjoining surrounding indian territory. These territories were swarmed by hindu refugees fleeing the repression of the Nizam whose army would in turn raid India under the pretext of attacking these fleeing refugees. Indian government than realised that Hyderabad being surrounded by India from all sides would become a major security burden, if it were to go to Pakistan & the number of refugees pouring in the neighbouring would be too much for them to handle.
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 06:37 |
Also, geographically this Hyderabad was just a little smaller than the present day pakistan & much bigger than bangladesh & economically more prosperous too.
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
Anujkhamar
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 07:26 |
The military was involved in Goa though, did you not check the link? http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13563
|
|
M. Nachiappan
Consul
suspended
Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 04:22 |
When I posted new topic "Why Indian history is ignored", the response has been different.
Here, the similar thread is going on with tolerable discussion.
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 16:12 |
Vivek Sharma if you are reading, about the 1000 years without invasions, you are forgetting the invasion of Central Asia (1645-1647?) by the Mughal empire under Shah Jahan, against the khan of Samarkand and the Sha Abbas II of Persia, wich conquered Kandahar.
Edited by Ikki - 13-Nov-2006 at 16:13
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 17:55 |
I believe the problem with India is the way history is still done up to this day.
The center of history is still the West, and all is written in function of the West. Let me show you examples:
(1) Islam is mentioned because it was a menace for the West most of the time.
(2) China is mentioned because their inventions and "exhotic" culture impressed the West very much. They saw it like the stereotype of the opposed culture.
(3) The culture of the Americas is mentioned because it serves as a parallel to compare the developed of the West.
(4) Africa and the Pacific are mentioned because the effect the West produced in them.
Now, What is the relation between the India and the West?
Yes, people knows that the impact of Indian's civilization in East and South East Asia is huge, in religion, phylosophy, architecture and arts, but that impact was in the East, not on the West.
The only measurable impact of Indian in the West has been through second parties: Mainly Persians and Muslims, so the effect get diluted. And the areas of impact (Arithmetic, Chess) has not been associated with Indian very much.
In short, the problem is Eurocentrism.
Besides, Western knows India is a society that has many points in common with the West, and a common Indoeuropean origin, so it does not call the attention as much like other culture. Like China, for instance.
In short, the problem is Eurocentrism. That's my oppinion, anyways.
Pinguin
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 23:02 |
I think thats very accurate pinguin
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 23:43 |
Originally posted by Ikki
Vivek Sharma if you are reading, about the 1000 years without invasions, you are forgetting the invasion of Central Asia (1645-1647?) by the Mughal empire under Shah Jahan, against the khan of Samarkand and the Sha Abbas II of Persia, wich conquered Kandahar.
|
Kandhar has been a part of India for a much longer time than it being a part of other countries. Originally it was one of the main centres of Indian civilization.
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|
M. Nachiappan
Consul
suspended
Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 02:05 |
The problem is not with India or Indian history, but the attitude of non-Indians (including the pre-1947 ones) with India.
Biased with religion, they look at India.
It is incorrect to say that the "west" was not influenced by India. In fact, the west borrowed heavily from India, as for as non-material culture is concerned.
The influence of India on Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, are dowplayed oir suppressed.
Even many archaelogical evidences have been misinterpreted to suppress the Indian connection and influence.
The works of Count CFC Volney, Donald A. Mackanzie, Edward Pockoke and others are not discussed.
Rarely BOngozkhai inscription is mentioned, but the other inscriptions about India are suppressed.
Only non-Indians have to go from one place to another to the claim of origin of culture, tradition, heritage, civilization etc.
Take the "westerners":
For philsophy, they point to the Greeks;
For mathematics, they go to Babylonia;
For religion, they depend on the middle-east;
for other factors, they point to different places.
But, for Indians, they have in India and this is the important characteristic.
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 09:58 |
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma
Originally posted by Ikki
Vivek Sharma if you are reading, about the 1000 years without invasions, you are forgetting the invasion of Central Asia (1645-1647?) by the Mughal empire under Shah Jahan, against the khan of Samarkand and the Sha Abbas II of Persia, wich conquered Kandahar.
|
Kandhar has been a part of India for a much longer time than it being a part of other countries. Originally it was one of the main centres of Indian civilization.
|
I agree that south-east portion of Afghanistn can be more closed to India than to Persia, but you must admit that the attack to Samarkanda was the invasion that deny your sentence about the 1000 years
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 11:40 |
Originally posted by pinguin
...
|
Althought i agree greatly with you about eurocentrism, wiht your main argument
wich is that the importance is defined according the relation with the west, i
must say that he question here isn't the influence of India in the West. In fact, India was until 1960 one of the more
importants non europeans actor in western historiography. Why had lost
positions with east asian countries, specially Japan and China? This only can be explained
according with her geopolitical position.
|
|
Vivek Sharma
Arch Duke
Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 23:45 |
The attack on Samarkand was to safeguard the Indian Provinces. It was a preemptory strike.
|
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
|
|