How Britain stole $45 trillion from India and lied about it

[yskokila]

1 minute ago, galiraju said:

And the Shah of Iran stole more than the English, probably.  

idhoka jujubi story--- created by the Great Secular Historians of India after Independence to keep Mughal looters in good looks.

Of course the Kohinoor and some other jewellery were stolen, thats nothing when you take whole Indian wealth into account.

[galiraju]

1 minute ago, yskokila said:

idhoka jujubi story--- created by the Great Secular Historians of India after Independence to keep Mughal looters in good looks.

Of course the Kohinoor and some other jewellery were stolen, thats nothing when you take whole Indian wealth into account.

so?

[yskokila]

7 minutes ago, galiraju said:

so?

My point is, after Independence, the Seculars with Communist background were given the chance to re-write Indian History. In their view, the modern History of India started only from 1526 AD when Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi at First Panipat War. And then they keep on defending Mughals portraying every others as looter.

When the British time comes, they were given the titles as 'Racists', 'Looters' who made Indians slaves. And then suddenly Gandhi comes. And secular Nehru comes. Indian gains independence. Thats it.

They will never mention:

1. The period between decline of Mughal Empire and 1757 when British first acquired Indian land of Bengal.

2. No mention of Maratha Empire and Shivaji because they were Hindus.

3. No mention of any Hindu Kings and Kingdoms that survived on slaught of the Mughal and British Empires.

4. No mention of innumerable middle class Hindu Youth who sacrificed everything they had to fight the British Might.

5. No mention of Khilafat Movement and Genocides of Hindus, the movement which resulted in the partition of India.

 

 

 

[Mirage]

25 minutes ago, yskokila said:

No, you completely lost my point. By 1947, by  Dr.B R Ambedkar's account, which is 100% true, Dalits were not allowed to wear chappals while crossing Brahmin and other upper caste streets. This was continued till 1970's as well.

Separate Wells, separate areas to live, separate places of Worship.....where do you think they came from?

They were all existing since centuries and the upper caste historians made good attempt to divert this blame to Mughals and Britishers and wash off their hands.

To avoid this untouchability, British Govt promoted 'Conversions' and Swami Vivekananda too helped to prosper this Movement across India.

Pakistan was a different story though, by the end of Mughal Empire, it was converted to 90% Islam and gone deep into a point of no return.

It’s incorrect to say that caste system existed since centuries. Where is the evidence coming from? What the Hindu social constructs have is Jatis and Varnas and not castes. Again, there is evidence on how caste constructs entered into India and how missionaries have used it as a tool convert pagans. 

https://youtu.be/ifteSZ_84Aw
 

what about Swami Vivekananda?

 

[yskokila]

8 minutes ago, Mirage said:

It’s incorrect to say that caste system existed since centuries. Where is the evidence coming from? What the Hindu social constructs have is Jatis and Varnas and not castes. Again, there is evidence on how caste constructs entered into India and how missionaries have used it as a tool convert pagans. 

https://youtu.be/ifteSZ_84Aw
 

what about Swami Vivekananda?

 

I agree that Swami Vivekananda himself encouraged these conversions because of the subjugation that Dalits were facing during those times. He gave a respectful name to this: 'Egalitarianism'

Jatis and Varnas are pre-cursors to Casteism, no doubt about that, though I cannot provide concrete evdience.

Jati, Varna, caste are all the different faces of the same coin called 'Discrimination'

But for sure, its not Mughlas or Britsh that brought casteism in India

[galiraju]

10 minutes ago, yskokila said:

My point is, after Independence, the Seculars with Communist background were given the chance to re-write Indian History. In their view, the modern History of India started only from 1526 AD when Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi at First Panipat War. And then they keep on defending Mughals portraying every others as looter.

When the British time comes, they were given the titles as 'Racists', 'Looters' who made Indians slaves. And then suddenly Gandhi comes. And secular Nehru comes. Indian gains independence. Thats it.

They will never mention:

1. The period between decline of Mughal Empire and 1757 when British first acquired Indian land of Bengal.

2. No mention of Maratha Empire and Shivaji because they were Hindus.

3. No mention of any Hindu Kings and Kingdoms that survived on slaught of the Mughal and British Empires.

4. No mention of innumerable middle class Hindu Youth who sacrificed everything they had to fight the British Might.

5. No mention of Khilafat Movement and Genocides of Hindus, the movement which resulted in the partition of India.

 

 

 

I know all this kno? Actually, communists particularly requested/demanded for education system to be their portfolio...Also, most of the heads of the educational institutions are communists after the Independence. This led to loosing the national identity of India...or the self-respect. 

[galiraju]

1 minute ago, yskokila said:

I agree that Swami Vivekananda himself encouraged these conversions because of the subjugation that Dalits were facing during those times. He gave a respectful name to this: 'Egalitarianism'

Jatis and Varnas are pre-cursors to Casteism, no doubt about that, though I cannot provide concrete evdience.

But for sure, its not Mughlas or Britsh that brought casteism in India

I was in the impression this due to Manushrmiti...that placed hard boundaries between the varnas and prevented any change/marriage between the varnas. 

[galiraju]

Also, the demise of India is its people. No one else should be blamed. If anyone were to blame, that person is pritviraj Chauhan's'  father in law. 

[galiraju]

If you are talking about the social structure, we can conveniently blame Manu...but all in all it is always the exploitation of powerless vs. the power. Nothing strange here. But before Manu there may be minimal exploitation due to change in varnas is allowed. Cant comment...India is weird in some way lol 

[Mirage]

11 minutes ago, yskokila said:

I agree that Swami Vivekananda himself encouraged these conversions because of the subjugation that Dalits were facing during those times. He gave a respectful name to this: 'Egalitarianism'

Jatis and Varnas are pre-cursors to Casteism, no doubt about that, though I cannot provide concrete evdience.

Jati, Varna, caste are all the different faces of the same coin called 'Discrimination'

But for sure, its not Mughlas or Britsh that brought casteism in India

There are multiple instances where Swami Vivekananda lashed out at missionaries and their conversions. Not sure where your evidence is coming from again. 
 

bro, without evidence you are simply playing to the tunes of the what was dished out as Hindus practice evil caste system, which actually is a tool used by the Colonialists to divide and rule & further by Missionaries to convert. Jati simply translates to vocation of that community and they had their own deities and stuff. Even if you take the example of Lingayat community in Karnataka, there are multiple Jatis within Lingayat sampradaya. 

How can you be sure of something without knowing the source?

[Mirage]

25 minutes ago, yskokila said:

My point is, after Independence, the Seculars with Communist background were given the chance to re-write Indian History. In their view, the modern History of India started only from 1526 AD when Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi at First Panipat War. And then they keep on defending Mughals portraying every others as looter.

When the British time comes, they were given the titles as 'Racists', 'Looters' who made Indians slaves. And then suddenly Gandhi comes. And secular Nehru comes. Indian gains independence. Thats it.

They will never mention:

1. The period between decline of Mughal Empire and 1757 when British first acquired Indian land of Bengal.

2. No mention of Maratha Empire and Shivaji because they were Hindus.

3. No mention of any Hindu Kings and Kingdoms that survived on slaught of the Mughal and British Empires.

4. No mention of innumerable middle class Hindu Youth who sacrificed everything they had to fight the British Might.

5. No mention of Khilafat Movement and Genocides of Hindus, the movement which resulted in the partition of India.

 

 

 

Instead NCERT textbooks glorify Aurangazeb as a secular who funded temples and ducks when asked for the source. That the state of our textbooks 

 

[yskokila]

1 minute ago, Mirage said:

Instead NCERT textbooks glorify Aurangazeb as a secular who funded temples and ducks when asked for the source. That the state of our textbooks 

 

Abbo adhinka araachakam le. 60 years of Congress Rule has given free hand to modern Indian History writers. They never mentioned about the blood shed and killings of millions of Hindus occurred during the spread of Mughal Empire from Panipat to modern Bangladesh, from Delhi to deep South, from Gujarat to Assam. They also never mention about 17 times Somnath Temple destroyed by Islamic invaders.

[yskokila]

11 minutes ago, Mirage said:

There are multiple instances where Swami Vivekananda lashed out at missionaries and their conversions. Not sure where your evidence is coming from again. 
 

bro, without evidence you are simply playing to the tunes of the what was dished out as Hindus practice evil caste system, which actually is a tool used by the Colonialists to divide and rule & further by Missionaries to convert. Jati simply translates to vocation of that community and they had their own deities and stuff. Even if you take the example of Lingayat community in Karnataka, there are multiple Jatis within Lingayat sampradaya. 

How can you be sure of something without knowing the source?

I am not saying that Casteism is the only problem of India. I argue that without this Caste split, India could have become a Britain about the same time Britain became a Super Power. I am also defending Hindus who collectively lost whole of their glory and wealth to Islamic and British rulers. Vivekananda might be angry with Missionaries as they were attracting people not by convincing that Christianity is better but by blaming Hinduism as the root cause of all evils of modern India. I am sure I read the biography of Vivekananda and he encouraged conversions.

[Mirage]

6 minutes ago, yskokila said:

Abbo adhinka araachakam le. 60 years of Congress Rule has given free hand to modern Indian History writers. They never mentioned about the blood shed and killings of millions of Hindus occurred during the spread of Mughal Empire from Panipat to modern Bangladesh, from Delhi to deep South, from Gujarat to Assam. They also never mention about 17 times Somnath Temple destroyed by Islamic invaders.

Yup, neither Somnath nor Kashi, Mathura or any of the atrocities on Hindus/Hindu genocides. Not just the Islamic invaders, they also don’t want to mention about Goa inquisition by Francis Xavier. Like you mentioned, Moplah genocide was thrown under the carpet as some sort of movement. 

[Mirage]

6 minutes ago, yskokila said:

I am not saying that Casteism is the only problem of India. I argue that without this Caste split, India could have become a Britain about the same time Britain became a Super Power. I am also defending Hindus who collectively lost whole of their glory and wealth to Islamic and British rulers. Vivekananda might be angry with Missionaries as they were attracting people not by convincing that Christianity is better but by blaming Hinduism as the root cause of all evils of modern India. I am sure I read the biography of Vivekananda and he encouraged conversions.

Are you referring to the life of Swami Vivekananda by his eastern and western disciples? If so, I’d like to see specific references.