Reason why Hindu Civilisation survived despite the places like Persia being islamised at so much ease?
It is because Persian Royalty accepted the Christianity of Lakhmids which was different from that Byzantine supported.
Persian King was quite happy that Lakhmids & Eastern Church had turned religious enemy of Byzantine on the matter of Jesus being seen as Human & not son of god.
Nestorians were on rise.
To supersede the Byzantines, the cross culture between Sassanids & Lakhmids led to arrival/ creation of Islam.
In no time the Persians became Muslims. All historical accounts support this.
The transition of Islam wasn’t that problematic.
Those who rebelled were very few & saw persecutions. The old RigVaidik people certainly knew their original homeland India would welcome them & it happened.
When India encountered Islam, resistant happened in tooth & nail.
It had to be because this new form of Christianity was as radical as their counterpart Byzantines. This was outright alien.
Hence Indians saw abundant merit to resist this cult.
There was no fights whatsoever of that scale among sampradayas & in fact, people often changed that too.
This was not the case with this encounter.
Later the polemics against Brahmins was created by Buddhists many centuries post Buddha.
But truth is that no one was as such fight.
It is always a matter of great discussion of nuances to bring the case that why rest of world chose to convert/ rather couldn’t or didn’t give much fight though Indians gave it & hence we are still Hindus.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It should be written as "Hindutva", not "Hindustava".
What is "your" minister? Get some sanity when you wish to deal with history.
Ambedkar saw "CONGRESS & GANDHI" as root supporter of Untouchability that is why wrote the book framing them & not RSS, HM or Savarkar.
Well @lovekeshchandra , yes Ambedkar chose to walk in "Buddha Panth" but his reason as political person were GANDHI & CONGRESS. They failed to do anything for Dalits, rather they intensified problems.
He put it openly in his book.
You keep blaming Hindutva & Savarkar @lovekeshchandra for untoucability. While Gandhi kept talking lofty he wanted a Dalit to remain Shudra by profession forever Savarkar was practically making things happen through intercaste dining, patitpawan mandir.
Interestingly, author Jha, claims in the article that Kathak & Khayal Gayaki were born in period of Amir Khusraw.
What a joke.
The roots of Kathak is found in "Natya Shastra". Even the conservative Marxist historians place this text 3-4 centuries before so called birth of Jesus
"The Arya Samaj was the first Hindu movement to take up a bold stand in this context. Maharshi Dayanand himself had showed up Muhammad for the sort of man he was."
in his book, "Freedom of expression: Secular theocracy versus liberal democracy."
SR Goel writes, "He (Dayanand) made a positive contribution when he pointed out that India had inherited a spirituality and a culture which were not only indigenous but also intrinsically superior to the imported creeds and cultures...
...He encouraged and enabled his people to reawaken to their own inner sources of strength, and hold their heads high in the face of foreign invaders. He was the first to use the terms Swadeshi and Swarajya.
There was a period, when every Hindu Organisations including Ramkrishna Mission, Hindu Mahasabha, Arya Samaj spoke of Shuddhi (re-converting to Hindu Fold) & wanted Hindus to give away shackles of caste for same.
Instead of blaming them as reformist & Christian stooges+
One need to understand Politics, situation of that period.
Why all were on same page?
Recently we came across a case where a BJP’s MLA’s mother converted to Christianity.+
A thing was observed that a child deemed to be Shudra by birth ran into the Mandir & heavy fine was imposed (₹25,000).