Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

[shiv]

Seriously you are comparing Pakistan with far off Central Asia & Arabia?

You are saying that Hindu slaves in a Hindu majority area (such as Pakistan used to be ) ended up speaking Indo-Aryan languages and that Hindu slaves in non Hindu majority areas ended up speaking some other languages?

Doctor saab you are trying to pass off absence of proof as proof.

The people of faraway lands will speak their languages anyway, whether there are Hindu slaves or not. The absence of any evidence of Indian culture there is not proof that slaves were taken there in large numbers. Certainly slaves were taken but the really large number of slaves was in the area called Pakistan. Far smaller numbers went to central Asia. Not enough to change the demographics.

The reason I am arguing is not because I dispute the fact of slave taking. I think your argument is a self goal where you hand the baton to Pakistanis and allow them to claim that they came from Central Asia/Arabia and enslaved Hindus. One set of slave Hindus were taken to Central Asia by the Muslim brothers of Pakis, while the Pakis stayed on here and enslaved Hindus. This is a gross misreading of reality. The fact is that Pakistanis are the very Hindus who were enslaved and raped and converted. To me, and on this thread that is a very important fact. Pakistanis must not be allowed to forget that. Or if they have forgotten they need to be reminded.

[devesh]

"Indian culture", when it existed in Afghanistan, was also dependent on other factors like a decently irrigated land and connections to the Sindhu-Punjab, and via there to GV. as the land resources of the place were destroyed and then the cultural links broken, "Indian Culture" dried up. the racial diversity still belonged to "Indian culture" when "indian culture" dominated. the migrations and massacres would effect the racial balance. but the same racial diversity/groups would most likely have existed back then too. doesn't mean they didn't belong to the "Indian Culture".

[brihaspati]

Rudradev ji,
just wanted to say that "ruling out" of either "direction" would be difficult to make with the current level of resolution that we can have. Much larger databases would be needed. As of now only a few thousand individual samples in totality!

Much greater sample sizes however can indicate the type of things we are looking for.

As for partiality in food and shelter allocation - yes possible. But the descriptions we often have, is that soldiers pays sort of included "such slaves" as a form of payment. This would mean they would lose out on their loot if the maal deteriorates in sale value in transit. Even in this since the females would be likely to be used by their owner even on transit, or rented out to pals in return for money or otherwise - the women would spend more time within shelters/tents/covers. In POW situations, when not expressly forbidden as in some Nazi pretensions - it is typically found that a proportion of women do offer "services" in return for food and other perks. Some such arrangement could have been arrived at also by the captives - in this case some "extra" service perhaps. There are descriptions of some Delhi Sultans making captive "Hindu" girls dance openly in public in a procession before they were distributed to favourite servants. Dancing skills of "hindu" girls [or their reputation in rati-sastra] appears to have been noted as enhancing "sale values".

So more women are likely to have survived even under deprivation conditions you refer to.

Another factor - as I suggested in my earlier post - is that more of the better looking women would have been appropriated, or overall larger number of captives, would belong to the higher ups - and hence better cared for.

The fact of slave export is not contradictory to a large proportion of surviving current Pakis being produced from a few powerful Muslim men raping or enslaving a lot of hapless local women and populating most of the community. Both could run in parallel.

[Singha]

this graph proves that assamese are the chosen ones - perched delicately between two mighty pools of humanity, the bengali and the han, imbibing the worst aspects of both
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rg2007.png

also note the utter homogenity of the sinic people. usually happens when one dominant big cheese in the yard (the han) subdues all the 'minor peoples' and as the alpha males, mates with women of all these subdued communities over a long time. similar courtesy in reverse not extended to the losing males of the ethnic minorities.

[shiv]

In support of Surasena ji - even the modern experience should support this. How many of Indian mothers married to foreigners in foreign nations - are able to impart their mother tongues to their kids - especially if those kids have to interact in the larger society in the tobgue of their fathers. This is about well-observed linguistic trends. I am not extending it to other cultural aspects. But given that mullahs would keep a much more keen eye in areas where Isalm entrenched earlier - it is possible that any attempt by the mothers would be literally durra-ahed out of the mothers.

The two groups are not comparable. The Indian women living abroad already speak the foreign tongue. Abducted slave women who bear children after rape cannot normally be expected to speak a foreign tongue.

That apart, it depends on the number. Anglo Indians speak Indian languages. The group were mainly British men and Indian women. Pakistanis speak Sindhi and Punjabi. Invading men and Indian women. If the numbers of foreign women speaking a set of languages is huge, then their language can become dominant or significant. If the numbers are small, then the local language is likely to predominate. The absence of any remnant of language may indicate fewer numbers compared to the local population. What was the local population in Central Asia in the 1500s?

[KLNMurthy]

Shiv has cited the existence of Indic memes in pak and their claimed absence in points farther out to support his rejection of the hypothesis that Hindu slaves were transported in large numbers to places well beyond pak.

I am not an expert on study of historical dispersal and dissipation of memes. I don't believe shiv is either. But I see a logical fallacy in how shiv is arguing this.

We have (I haven't seen this myself) contemporary writers telling about muslims carrying off vast numbers of indic slaves to central asia etc. Shiv's response is that can't be true because XYZ evidence of indicness should have been there but is not there. First of all, unless one is a trained expert in the subject, statements like XYZ should have been there have littld or no value--we don't know what we should be expecting as evidence and wjhether it is conclusively positive or negative. Secondly, XYZ itself might be there but no one looked for it.

How trace evidence of indic slaves plays out in far off places could be completely different from how it played out in pak for any number of plausible reasons. Pak's proximity to the homeland which still retained some vitality is one I can think of. Goa is another example of this: it was brutally christianized but remained basically indic.

So broadly, we have eyewitness contemporary documentation on one side and a bunch of fallacious speculation on the other side. The documentation could be of poor quality, fullmof obvious lies and exaggerations, like pliny's account of India, but short of that, I think the documentation wins.

[Singha]

the total population of all the CAR -stans today are likely to be less than (NCR+Mumbai)..in an area as large as India . in 1500s would have to be even less as no ethnic russian soviet era migration was there, and no high yield agriculture either to support large population in the harsh winter. no advanced mining existed. this area really had nothing worth looting and was merely a transit area for trade routes and looters/adventures criss crossing between richer lands like bharat, mongolia, caspian basin, persia and turkey.

[KLNMurthy]

@shiv I responded to you in OT thread before seeing the ongoing discussion, please see there if you wish.

[RamaY]

^ One reason for that could be that

The slaves are not allowed to have offspring. The woman slaves are used as sex toys where as male slaves are used as forced labor.

[parsuram]

Rudradev ji- Re:

the presence of M haplogroups in Central Asia need not necessarily arise from the forced migration of Indian slaves there... it may derive from the pre-existing M's who went over there long before there was any Islam.

This is exactly what I had mentioned in one of my early posts, that Hindu populations were present in west and central asia pre-muhmmud of arabia. In central asia is the city of Kashi, north of Mt. Kailas, and that could have been "uttar Kashi" mentioned in the Mahabharat. A contengent from uttar Kashi was at Kurukshetra.

[Lalmohan]

kashgar?

plus various invaders from central asia had in the pre muslim era been absorbed into the indic fold - shakas predominantly, so there would be "indicators" in central asia where these people came from - and not all of them were necessarily turkic or mongoloid in origin

[brihaspati]

shiv ji,
yes Indian mothers abroad would have some intro to the local language. But the question would be about how much of their mother tongue they would be able to pass off on their children who will be forced to use the local language in a passive situation like modern "west" say.

Under mullahcracy - a very very keen eye is maintained on "un-Islamic" practices. The level of focus maintained would be surprising if experienced for the first time. I know BD and WB Muslim girls married off to some Kashmiri men [don't know why - but some kashmiri muslim men apparently found it easier to obtain Bengali brides than pure-KV - could be a part of longer term strategic networking, having excuses to be around in "eastern sectors"] from my valley "friends". As far as I could see children had no smattering of Bengali. The local mullah made it a point to ensure that "Bengali" was not uttered by the mothers. One of my friends actually grumbled about this -saying in private that he thought it was a waste - since he was aware of a long past tradition of Bengali presence in Kashmir and that Bengali was a "sweet" language. But he dared not oppose the "mullah" in public.

alright! going out of this thread for now!

[Varoon Shekhar]

A Very General( notice the capitals!) observation on Hindu vs non-Hindu behaviour. Non-Hindus like Christians, Moslems, Sikhs and Buddhists are more simple, cheerful and friendly than Hindus, when it comes to strangers. Hindus are kind and thoughtful to people they know, friends and family. Hindus will be more quick tempered and intolerant to other Hindus, or other Indians, while the tolerance threshold of the non-Hindus is higher( not of course speaking of religious tolerance here) in everyday situations. One explanation for this is that, person for person, Hindus are more 'successful', ambitious, career oriented and hence, hate to use the word, more snobbish and judgemental. Also, there's the old saying "familiarity breeds contempt". It's likely that Hindus, being liberal, feel the 'allure of difference' that liberals feel, to that which is different, in this case minorities. Minorities, being minorities, are more interesting in general. It's a human quality.

[RamaY]

^ The problem is that behavior is projected as strength where as it is insanity. The opposite is not timidity but sanity.

Unfortunately Hindus are psyched as timid where as they are the sane group.

[Jarita]

Talking about slavery whatever happened to the more recent slave populations of Europe. Europe had a black slave population till a couple of centuries ago. The current black people in Europe are not a descendent of this population - they are immigrants.
Wonder if they were absorbed.

[brihaspati]

^ One reason for that could be that

The slaves are not allowed to have offspring. The woman slaves are used as sex toys where as male slaves are used as forced labor.

RamaY ji - you are also forgetting the forced castration of a lot of young good looking boys for personal pleasures of pious leaders of the ummah as well as guarding over a lot of female resources accumulated but beyond capacity for use and hence assumed to be intensely frustrated.

Malik Kafur was supposedly a good looking Gujarati boy who caught the eye of slavers. Was castrated and ultimately landed up in Alauddin's hands who is again reputed to have had something for boys. That this practice among the powerful of the pious is well known is attested to in written legends of for example one aristocrat of the Bengal sultanate [but of claimed solid Pathan connections] having supposedly been killed off in the throes of passion after his b**** were squeezed by his male lover. Even if the stories are so-called "soldier's tales" - it shows that Islamic narrators did not find this impious entirely in Islamic elite or entirely unbelievable.

But this would also lead to culling of "beautiful" males and effective removal from the gene pool. Is this the reason that the average Paki abdul do not seem to have the much vaunted TFTA looks?

[RajeshA]

I really don't understand the point about "Indian" slaves being taken to Pakistan! Pakistan was India Central! The place was teeming with Indians already! What is the point of bringing slaves for further corners of India to that place?

It is like gifting a pack of barfi to a halwai! Or is the reason why 97% of Pakistanis are just as SDRE because rest of India exported so many slaves from Bihar and Bangalore to that place?

[Prem]

^ One reason for that could be that

Malik Kafur was supposedly a good looking Gujarati boy who caught the eye of slavers. Was castrated and ultimately landed up in Alauddin's hands who is again reputed to have had something for boys. That this practice among the powerful of the pious is well known is attested to in written legends of for example one aristocrat of the Bengal sultanate [but of claimed solid Pathan connections] having supposedly been killed off in the throes of passion after his b**** were squeezed by his male lover. Even if the stories are so-called "soldier's tales" - it shows that Islamic narrators did not find this impious entirely in Islamic elite or entirely unbelievable. But this would also lead to culling of "beautiful" males and effective removal from the gene pool. Is this the reason that the average Paki abdul do not seem to have the much vaunted TFTA looks?

Woh , same old Lahori sunnat, no secret itis still thriving in Pakistan.

[Rudradev]

Parsuram-ji, definitely so. The Orientalist thesis has always characterized India as the "receptacle" for invasions originating to north and west... but the truth may have more to do with a continuous flow of migration of the L3 clade (East African) that differentiated into M as it first traveled to peninsular India, and then dispersed to Central Asia as well as Australasia. Instead of the "Arctic Home of the Aryans", an "Indic urheimat of Eurasians" is a far more likely scenario.

****


Shiv, I gather that your thesis is one that identifies TSP as a national culture predicated on rapine. I don't disagree with this. However, I think we should examine the role of the female prerogative in developing such a society.

We know that the male prerogative is always to spread the seed as far and wide as possible.

Islam provides a perfect "moral" justification for exercising this prerogative, by means that contravene what most of the human race came to accept as civilized behaviour thousands of years ago. Abduction, enslavement, rape, etc.

Interestingly, Dharmic culture has very early proscriptions against this sort of thing that live on even in the most ancient pauranic folklore. It is said that the rishi Brihaspati's wife, Tara, was impregnated by Chandra and had an illegitimate child (Budh). While Brihaspati was understandably unhappy about this, he accepted the divine ruling that as Tara's husband the responsibility to raise the child was his (and not Chandra's.) This is a precedent for a theme reinforced many times in the epics and enshrined in Hindu law. If your wife has a child, even if the child isn't carrying your genetic material, the child is your responsibility to raise.

This is the very antithesis of the Islamic way; it emphasizes the norms of a civilized social order over the hereditary prerogatives that animals and Abrahamics hold supreme.

But what I think we're doing, when we characterize Pakistan solely as a product of Muslim men exercising their divinely ordained prerogatives of abduction and rape, is papering over the female prerogatives that also contributed (more subtly but as profoundly) towards shaping the society that Pakistan is today.

In your illustration of the development of Pakistan, Muslim Ghazis take Hindu/Sikh women from conquered Kafir lands to Islamic settlements further west and enjoy them; the sons they bear are raised to be Muslims, but the food, culture, language etc. that they imbibe comes from the slave women and is Indian in origin. All true.

However, what about the conscious role and survival choices pursued by those abducted, enslaved and impregnated women (and their female offspring)? How has that contributed to the evolution of Pakis as the rape-child nation?

Harking back to something brihaspati wrote earlier:

As for partiality in food and shelter allocation - yes possible. But the descriptions we often have, is that soldiers pays sort of included "such slaves" as a form of payment. This would mean they would lose out on their loot if the maal deteriorates in sale value in transit. Even in this since the females would be likely to be used by their owner even on transit, or rented out to pals in return for money or otherwise - the women would spend more time within shelters/tents/covers. In POW situations, when not expressly forbidden as in some Nazi pretensions - it is typically found that a proportion of women do offer "services" in return for food and other perks. Some such arrangement could have been arrived at also by the captives - in this case some "extra" service perhaps. There are descriptions of some Delhi Sultans making captive "Hindu" girls dance openly in public in a procession before they were distributed to favourite servants. Dancing skills of "hindu" girls [or their reputation in rati-sastra] appears to have been noted as enhancing "sale values".

So more women are likely to have survived even under deprivation conditions you refer to.

It follows of course that a woman taken by the Ghazis had two choices. She could play the virtuous wife/daughter to the bitter end... resisting rape to the extent possible, losing out on food and shelter as well as protection, losing her own husband and children (if they had even survived the raid in the first place) and ultimately becoming extinguished. On the other hand, she could change sides and do her best to mate with a Muslim of influence at whatever level possible... guaranteeing not only her own survival, but possibly that of her children, as well as advantageous status for any future children she might have.

Ensuring the welfare of offspring is as much a female imperative, as spreading the seed is a male imperative. The Muslim men who seized women from Hindu and Sikh lands were looking for wombs to impregnate, and follow the will of Allah by multiplying his hordes (aside from the carnal pleasure to be derived thus.) However, the kaffir women who eventually integrated into that society, becoming Muslims, were also consciously pursuing an agenda defined by their female prerogative: maximizing the chance that whatever came out of their wombs would be best provided for and gain a position of advantage in the prevailing power structure. These women were as much part and parcel of the rape-nation system, and contributed as much to its construction and perpetuation in their own way, as the Ghazi men themselves.

What I am trying to say is that, for women who made that survival choice: there was NO benefit in keeping Indic memes alive. They had to become Muslim, and serve the Muslim expansionist agenda, having children and raising them as "good" Muslims. In teaching their children to speak Indo-Aryan languages, or feeding them roti-subzi-gosht, these women were not choosing to perpetuate any vestige of Indianness other than by accident. What started with rape, turned into a mutually beneficial (if unequal) relationship between the two halves of that Muslim society... the Ghazi men and the converted women who saw Islam as a path to go from victimhood to survival and even influence.

The key thing to remember here is that the female imperative ... universally... is to ensure the best for their offspring. In that sense, it is the ultimate Achilles' heel for a society like Pakistan.

Once upon a time when the Ghazis were successful and the Indics were losing, it made an atavistic sort of sense for kidnapped women to switch sides and protect their genetic material by collaborating fully with the invaders... becoming happy consorts and good jihadi-breeders instead of virtuous rape-victims.

Today Pakistan is crumbling, economically and socially. Far more than men, Pakistani women will feel increasingly compelled...at a gut-level... to reject a society whose institutions do not even provide security (let alone chances of comfort or success) for their children. This innate compulsion will be all the greater because their ancestors come from a civilization whose very fundamental precepts are geared towards the institutional protection of womens' rights and the female prerogative of stability and security for children... as exemplified in the legend of Brihaspati, Tara and Budh. That's the thing about Islam... it can be attractive to that female imperative when the enemy is weak and things are going well, but when the going gets tough the Ghazis get going (elsewhere), leaving the women and children to starve.

Meanwhile, for all the setbacks over the past 1000 years, the Dharmic institutional capacity and civilizational commitment to provide stability, security and success to the next generation has not wavered. The wombs that were taken from us at sword point, may well be brought back to us (many generations later) by that unique quality, now that it is beginning to be bolstered by economic prosperity in real terms. Islam understands this danger to itself... which is why it will go to any murderous extent to prevent the marriage of a Muslim girl to an (unconverted) Kafir man.

[member_19686]

Seriously you are comparing Pakistan with far off Central Asia & Arabia?

You are saying that Hindu slaves in a Hindu majority area (such as Pakistan used to be ) ended up speaking Indo-Aryan languages and that Hindu slaves in non Hindu majority areas ended up speaking some other languages?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

To communicate with their new masters they needed to learn the new language of their masters which could be Arabic or Iranic or some other language family.

If the women carried off had any kids, of course most of the kids would have only spoken the new language whether it be Pashto or Arabic or something else.

Even in far favorable circumstances how many second generation American's of Indian origin retain their ancestral language and you are expecting slaves to have made some mark there or retained their language.

Now I gave you the various IA languages that barely survive in those areas, you may go back and check their (or their ancestral languages) presence in the past in that same area. You will find out about the gradual linguistic change that has taken place, we know that Mahmud Ghaznavi minted coins bearing Sanskrit text imitating the Hindus he had just overrun.

We also know that the great Sanskrit grammarian pANini was from an area that falls today with in NWFP.

While Pakhtuns have always had a presence in the Afghanistan area (perhaps from RV times onward because there is a tribe called Paktha's mentioned there) there is no doubt that they have expanded a great deal in their spread after their conversion to Islam and the various Jihads. Airavat has written about this on this very forum.

The expansion also coincided with the ever shrinking presence of IA speakers, the latest example being the Kalash. The Nuristani's are also on a similar path with increasing Pathanization so to speak.

Many Pashayi speakers consider themselves as some sort of Pathans even though they speak an IA language among themselves.

[member_19686]

The Senegalese author Tidiane N’Diaye published his book, LE GENOCIDE VOILÉ, in January, 2008. This work dealt with what he called the “The Veiled Genocide,” i.e. the enslavement of Negroes by Arab-Muslims from the 7th to the 20th centuries.

Here are some pertinent excerpts from the information about this book (source), translated from the original French:

“The slave trade of Negroes as practiced by the Western nations is well-known. However, it must be recognized that historically, this crime against humanity was an invention of the Arab-Muslim world. It was the Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Persians, who originated this infamous practice long before the Europeans began the African slave trade. For one thousand years, they were trading in African people, from the 7th to the 16th centuries. They resumed the practice from the 19th to the 20th centuries, long after the Western nations had abolished this trade.

“The demographic stagnation, the misery, the poverty, and the lack of development in the Dark Continent, are not the only consequences of this commerce, as many people imagine. Actually, the Islamic slave trade in Africa amounted to a planned genocide of Black people. It was a programmed ‘ethnic extinction by castration.’ Thus, the majority of the 17 million Africans who were brought to the Arab-Muslim world and transformed into eunuchs have disappeared, leaving no descendents at all.

“We would like to underline both the early date, and the great dimension of this trans-Saharan traffic that took place in the Eastern world, and to give an account of these forgotten facts. No amount of willful and selective amnesia will ever succeed to cover up the historical fact about the ‘Veiled Genocide.’

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/ ... avery.html

In his fact-filled work on the history of the Muslim Arab slave trade in Africa, Murray Gordon notes that this trade pre-dated the European Christian African slave trade by a thousand years and continued for more than a century after the Europeans had abolished the practice. Gordon estimates the number of slaves “harvested” from Black Africa over the period of the Muslim Arab slave trade at 11 million – roughly equal to the number taken by European Christians for their colonies in the New World...

While Gordon acknowledges that at times the Islamic version of slavery could be more “humane” than the European colonial version, he provides many facts which point out that the Muslim variety of slavery could be extremely cruel as well.

One particularly brutal practice was the mutilation of young African boys, sometimes no more than 9 or ten years old, to create eunuchs, who brought a higher price in the slave markets of the Middle East. Slave traders often created “eunuch stations” along the major African slave routes where the necessary surgery was performed in unsanitary conditions. Gordon estimates that only one out of every 10 boys subjected to the mutilation actually survived the surgery.

The taking of slaves – in razzias, or raids, on peaceful African villages – also had a high casualty rate. Gordon notes that the typical practice was to conduct a pre-dawn raid on an unsuspecting village and kill off as many of the men and older women as possible. Young women and children were then abducted as the preferred “booty” for the raiders.

Young women were targeted because of their value as concubines or sex slaves in markets. “The most common and enduring purpose for acquiring slaves in the Arab world was to exploit them for sexual purposes,” writes Gordon. “These women were nothing less than sexual objects who, with some limitations, were expected to make themselves available to their owners. . .Islamic law, as already noted, catered to the sexual interests of a man by allowing him to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as his purse allowed.” Young women and girls were often “inspected” before purchase in private areas of the slave market by the prospective buyer...

Further reading about the Arab/Muslim slave trades can be found in the following book:

Race and Slavery in the Middle East

Bernard Lewis

Oxford University Press (Trade); Reprint edition (April 1992)

An excerpt from this book can be found here
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SS ... lavery.htm

[Prem]

One way to find out the true genetic makeup of Poakipedes is conduct control experiment by removing the young male population from the scene and observe the behavior of mango Abdfools. The injecting of Dharmic element at various stages and th change in the behaviour or female counterparts can provide good marker toward past as well future expectations.
VM Among Indics can be a raw study case .

[brihaspati]

Parsuram-ji, definitely so. The Orientalist thesis has always characterized India as the "receptacle" for invasions originating to north and west... but the truth may have more to do with a continuous flow of migration of the L3 clade (East African) that differentiated into M as it first traveled to peninsular India, and then dispersed to Central Asia as well as Australasia. Instead of the "Arctic Home of the Aryans", an "Indic urheimat of Eurasians" is a far more likely scenario.

[...]
The key thing to remember here is that the female imperative ... universally... is to ensure the best for their offspring. In that sense, it is the ultimate Achilles' heel for a society like Pakistan.

Once upon a time when the Ghazis were successful and the Indics were losing, it made an atavistic sort of sense for kidnapped women to switch sides and protect their genetic material by collaborating fully with the invaders... becoming happy consorts and good jihadi-breeders instead of virtuous rape-victims.

Today Pakistan is crumbling, economically and socially. Far more than men, Pakistani women will feel increasingly compelled...at a gut-level... to reject a society whose institutions do not even provide security (let alone chances of comfort or success) for their children. This innate compulsion will be all the greater because their ancestors come from a civilization whose very fundamental precepts are geared towards the institutional protection of womens' rights and the female prerogative of stability and security for children... as exemplified in the legend of Brihaspati, Tara and Budh. That's the thing about Islam... it can be attractive to that female imperative when the enemy is weak and things are going well, but when the going gets tough the Ghazis get going (elsewhere), leaving the women and children to starve.

Meanwhile, for all the setbacks over the past 1000 years, the Dharmic institutional capacity and civilizational commitment to provide stability, security and success to the next generation has not wavered. The wombs that were taken from us at sword point, may well be brought back to us (many generations later) by that unique quality, now that it is beginning to be bolstered by economic prosperity in real terms. Islam understands this danger to itself... which is why it will go to any murderous extent to prevent the marriage of a Muslim girl to an (unconverted) Kafir man.

Brilliant! Absolutely. I have always espoused extending honourable proposals of marriage to orphaned girls and women of the Pakis after any conflict where the marads are encouraged to take up arms and defend their Paki honour. Once they pick up arms they become combatants and casualties or fatalities do no longer come under war crimes shadows.

We are running a severe shortage of eligible women up in the north. I know I was severely criticized at the time! But it is really important.

गृभ्णामि ते सुप्रजास्त्वाय हस्तं मया पत्या जरदष्टिर्यथासः ।
भगो अर्यमा सविता पुरन्धिर्मह्यांत्वादुःगार्हपत्याय देवाः ॥

[sanjaykumar]

One of the most perspicacious and internally consistent expositions I have read. Bravo Rudradev

[RajeshA]

LOL!

So basically what we are saying is that ultimately the women will decide which ideology is winning and which is losing!

And there is no better way to decide that metric in favor of Indians than by getting hordes and hordes of Paki women to marry and mate with Indians! So we end up at the same place, where I was advocating Indians lassoing the Pakeezahs!

What better way to tell Pakis that they are all losers!

[Prem]

LOL!
So basically what we are saying is that ultimately the women will decide which ideology is winning and which is losing!nd there is no better way to decide that metric in favor of Indians than by getting hordes and hordes of Paki women to marry and mate with Indians! So we end up at the same place, where I was advocating Indians lassoing the Pakeezahs!What better way to tell Pakis that they are all losers!

Morr korr Khoti boahr thalle!!
Rustic has more sharp, instant wisdom than IMs. Rabb nerre ke Kassun.

[parsuram]

I spent '07 in Gurgaon/Dilli on sabatical. Haryana has a particularly low F/M ratio, particularly in the marrage age window(0.8 or so). My driver , a sturdy family man from Uttaranchal, used to bring me up to speed on the socital changes I had missed over a 40 year absense from the motherland - other than what was visible all around me. I got those colorful updates daily, 40 minutes to and 40 minutes back from work every day. So one day he asks, "did you have kidnapping for brides in your time?" Surprised, I said no, not that I heard of, and asked him what that was all about. He told me there was an acute shortage of marragable girls around Kurukshetra, and that three brothers, who had trouble finding girls to marry, had gone to Jharkhand with their father and some other male elder relative, and had kidnapped three girls from there, brought them back to their village, and married them. I was stunned, didnt believe him, but later I asked around at work, and the next day I got confirmation that this was true. In 2007. The incident had been picked up by some news reporter, and was all over, apparently. And I thought that these were three men getting antsy to get married, and get laid, and could not wait for it any longer. Apparently these young men had no sister either - bad news for their parents as kanya daan is an essential sacrament, so now these boys had better hurry up and have a daughter, and the parents will just have to pray that they live long enough, and that grand daughter daan would be acceptable to the Gods. Last I heard of it, the five men had been arrested for kidnapping.

[shiv]

I really don't understand the point about "Indian" slaves being taken to Pakistan! Pakistan was India Central! The place was teeming with Indians already! What is the point of bringing slaves for further corners of India to that place?

In fact this was the point of talking about it in the Pakistan thread. (This thread is a change of direction) The area that was Pakistan was teeming with "Indians" who were Hindus. Once the Ghaznavids came in using Islamic fervor to subjugate, kill or enslave, being "Indians" in India did not matter. It was Hindu slaves in India. What mattered was loot and religion. With an outsize number of Hindus, the enslavement, rape or killing of Hindus in the area that is now Pakistan became the norm since Hindus were in a majority at the outset.

As far as I can figure out the Hindus in the area called Pakistan has three choices
1. To flee east into what is now Indian Punjab and thence onto the plains or the south. These were the people who brought the stories of atrocities and their descendants retain the memories posted on BRF
2. To get killed
3. To get enslaved and converted by force.

The Pakistanis of today are not the descendants of the Hindus who fled and retained their religion in India. They are also not the ones who were killed straight off. The Pakistanis of today are the descendants of those who were raped, enslaved and converted by force. Theer is overwhelming genetic evidence for this. This group - born from rape and mayhem, who call themselves "Pakistani" now have an Islamic narrative of their own. This Pak-Islamic narrative is something like this:

"Our glorious ancestors came from the north and west. We defeated the inferior Hindus and took their lands. We enslaved them and subjugated them."

This narrative leaves out some fundamental facts. The "we" who came from central Asia raped and enslaved the Hindu people of what is now Pakistan. During the initial decades and centuries the area likely remained predominantly Hindu, and that allowed the local rulers to use those Hindus as slaves, as well as to export them to other lands. The area that is now called Pakistan served as a rich source of Hindus for enslavement, until slave trade became difficult.

But let me add a revisionist twist to the narrative. Until very recently - 1970s-80s IIRC people from Pakistan, Muslim as they were, were called "Hindus" by Arabs. I personally met a Palestinian who said that Pakistanis are Hindus. To him, the language and culture of Pakistan was not shia, it was not Arab. It was "Hindu". This angered Pakistanis a great deal, but it remains a fact. The idea of Pakistan may have existed in Djinnah's brain, but not among Arab peoples.

Add to this fact the narratives of the slave trade by sunni central Asian slave traders. They considered Hindus as well as Persian shias as good for slavery. Slaves came from both areas. Clearly Islam alone was not a factor in grabbing slaves. To me this means that any SDRE from the Pakistan area could have been a "Hindu" who could be enslaved. It is likely that the mere naming of oneself as Abdul or Ayesha did not exempt the person living in the area called Pakistan from being grabbed as slave. If I was resident there - getting my tip lopped off and reciting the culleemer would not be enough for a slave trader to say "Hey this strong young man is circumcised and recites the culleemer. Let me leave him out and look for an uncircumcised dhoti"

The point I am making here is that not only were the people in the area called Pakistan enslaved, they were also exported in large numbers under the name "Hindu slaves". Their specific religion may not have mattered much.

If this were true, why do Hindus complain so much about Islamic slavery? Why are the people of Pakistan not complaining that their ancestors were taken as slaves? Only two explanations come to my mind

1. Pakis have no intention of being critical of Islamic raiders because the identify themselves with those rapine Islamic raiders despite overwhelming genetic and cultural evidence that they are Indians.

or..

2. Pakis were the conquerors and rulers. Hindu Indians were the slaves, the subjugated. To hell with genetic and cultural evidence.

What do you think folks?

[Prem]

Dr Zakhir Naik also mention Indian soil being Mother and father from Arabia. Onlee thing he dont mention is the offsprings are from either rape or out of wedlock. As Bajwa said , they are all Rangars, nothing else.

[shiv]

What I am trying to say is that, for women who made that survival choice: there was NO benefit in keeping Indic memes alive. They had to become Muslim, and serve the Muslim expansionist agenda, having children and raising them as "good" Muslims. In teaching their children to speak Indo-Aryan languages, or feeding them roti-subzi-gosht, these women were not choosing to perpetuate any vestige of Indianness other than by accident. What started with rape, turned into a mutually beneficial (if unequal) relationship between the two halves of that Muslim society... the Ghazi men and the converted women who saw Islam as a path to go from victimhood to survival and even influence.

Absolutely nothing to dispute here. My bringing up the subject on the Pakistan thread was more to point out Pakistan's internal contradictions and not to claim that slaves were not taken to central Asia, which became the real point of contention. By "accident"/need to survive as you put it, the children of raped women ended up perpetuating a culture that spoke indic languages and had other "Indic" markers.

Two questions arise. Why did the women not take up the language of their rapist husbands? Perhaps because there was no need to do that. The men left their seed and that was that. However the children and women did take on the religion of the rapist husbands. Why? Again, "survival" would be a perfectly good explanation. Survival in the area called Pakistan required conversion to Islam. It did not require change of language or other cultural markers.

Anyway this was a single generation problem. The children of the raped woman were all Muslim anyway and that, in the Pakistani narrative made them ghazis and victors. There must have been some beautiful girls among this second generation. Some of them must have been poor and fatherless or daughters of an abandoned talaqed wife. Were these girls exempt from rape or abduction because they were Muslim? I have not seen anyone ask this question, leave alone answer it. I can only guess the answer. Being Muslim in the area called Pakistan was probably no insurance against abduction, rape or enslavement. That must have been as true 500 years ago as it is now.

Then why is it that only Hindus complain of abduction and enslavement and Muslims don't? Could Muslims have enjoyed that treatment? Or is some historic fact being hidden y the perpetuation of the "Hindu abduction" story. It suits Hindus to complain that they were selectively abducted. it suits the Muslims of Pakistan to "admit" that they abducted Hindus and try to hide the fact that being Muslim offered little protection.

My question is as follows: "Is a historic injustice being done by sticking to the Hindu abduction/enslavement story?". It suits Hindus in India and Muslims in Pakistan to stick to this story. For Hindus it is grievance. For Pakis it is a "glorious past". But is the real truth more uncomfortable for Pakistanis to face. Are Hindus inadvertently "protecting" Islamic Pakistanis from their bestial past? For the purpose of protecting islam and being politically correct, it is possible to bend history and diss Hindus for complaining too much. If we uncovered evidence of Muslim abduction and rape by other Muslims through history, surely it would add to the Hindu argument about the bestiality of the "conquerors? Just as the religion of peace argument has been thoroughly trashed in modern times? Why let the Paki version of history off the hook? Why make it seem like ghazis somehow were "fair" to Muslims if they were not. So much for peace and justice and equality brought to the subcontinent by Islam.

[Jarita]

[

OT but how is that the women who were abducted or captured could not install Dharmic values in their progeny ? How come the next Muslim generation of Raped/abducted women turns out to be more fanatic than the previous one.
After all mothers always had lot of influence on their children.
Is this something to do with the psychology or my assumption is incorrect.

Nowadays the deracinated woman is highly susceptible to brainwashing. Case in point is Sharmila Tagore who from reports has become quite a fundo and very biased. Her son is busy marrying indics and converting them.

http://www.santabanta.com/cinema.asp?pid=40189

No we do not believe in idol worship at all, no not even my mom, who has been seriously following only the Islamic religion after being converted to Islam as Ayesha Begum. We may not practice what we preach, but we definitely do respect all the universal religions.

As for the Islamic religion the entire Pataudi clan is very pious, devout to the point of being labeled as fanatically extremists.

But when we separated I was more worried about Sara and Ibrahim who were then in Dingy's custody but of course I had trusted her enough and was very sure Dingy will never try to influence them in any which way and certainly not as far as our religion is concerned. - not influence them with sikhism

And in between you were all set to marry a Christian girl Rosa Catalano and now a Hindu Punjabi girl Kareena Kapoor…..?
So what? It never made any difference then and it's not at all going to make any difference now as far as my firm religious beliefs are concerned. Period!

[Singha]

a few centuries ago , with women only capable of moving on foot or bullock cart, if a woman was abducted or married off even 200km away she was as good as gone and would probably never make a trip back to her original home again. only traders and soldiers could move such distances and common farmers never strayed more than 50km away from home ....all their lives...except the riverine people who had access to good boats.

[JwalaMukhi]

There is fair amount of revenge by the hapless women who got forcibly converted. They ensure the next generation turn to match their marauding ancestors, by basically throwing a challenge to prove that the are worth their salt. The recent and neo-converts' progeny is under tremendous strain to prove that they are more arab than arabs. They are set on a path to find peace and spread peace. They can never find peace, until the whole duniya is peaceful.

Such is the predicament of pakis, who are never fully in control of their religion and hence have to behave more arabic than arabs. They are not sure if they can be called and accepted as fully arabs. Hence consistently, pakis are forced to unleash full peace on others, even among themselves, to prove to themselves. That's the reason, paki is never at peace by just being as jolly or as casual as even an arab. They have to be on guard and prove every chance that they are in fact true arabs. Deep down paki knows and squirms at the thought that he is not an arab.
Pakis, unleashing their peace on Bangladeshis, is well documented.

The women have set these ghazis on a quest to find all elusive peace.

[Airavat]

Being Muslim in the area called Pakistan was probably no insurance against abduction, rape or enslavement. That must have been as true 500 years ago as it is now.

Then why is it that only Hindus complain of abduction and enslavement and Muslims don't? Could Muslims have enjoyed that treatment? Or is some historic fact being hidden y the perpetuation of the "Hindu abduction" story. It suits Hindus to complain that they were selectively abducted. it suits the Muslims of Pakistan to "admit" that they abducted Hindus and try to hide the fact that being Muslim offered little protection.

My question is as follows: "Is a historic injustice being done by sticking to the Hindu abduction/enslavement story?". It suits Hindus in India and Muslims in Pakistan to stick to this story. For Hindus it is grievance. For Pakis it is a "glorious past". But is the real truth more uncomfortable for Pakistanis to face. Are Hindus inadvertently "protecting" Islamic Pakistanis from their bestial past?

+1

[Klaus]

If the OIT hypothesis is true, then I dont see how it is possible to pinpoint populations in CAR and ME as products of Islamic rape and slavery practices beyond a certain basic genetic and/or linguistic layer. In the course of the investigation, one is going to come up against a "lowest common denominator" where every marker will be Indian origin.

What we need to be looking for is the long-term trauma aspects associated with bondage and slavery and any genetic imprint of the same in mt-DNA, lack of potassium is one possibility. Occurrence of scurvy and rickets in target ME populations might be another.

[shiv]

There is fair amount of revenge by the hapless women who got forcibly converted. They ensure the next generation turn to match their marauding ancestors, by basically throwing a challenge to prove that the are worth their salt. The recent and neo-converts' progeny is under tremendous strain to prove that they are more arab than arabs. They are set on a path to find peace and spread peace. They can never find peace, until the whole duniya is peaceful.

Could "Hindu Kush" have been just as much "Mussalman kush". After all no Muslim invader/slave trader would have admitted that he was abducting or raping Muslims. Muslims don't kill Muslims you see. The vast majority of abductions from India seem to have gone from the north west of India (currently Pakistan) - regions that were subjugated by Islamic raiders 1000 years ago. All the slavery stories I have read are from 500 years ago or later. With a whole lot of Muslims going to central Asia one can understand why the culture shock may have been easier for abducted pretty girls. The question of Hindu women having to adjust in order to survive is unnecessary if the abducted girl is Muslim.

[shiv]

If the OIT hypothesis is true, then I dont see how it is possible to pinpoint populations in CAR and ME as products of Islamic rape and slavery practices beyond a certain basic genetic and/or linguistic layer. In the course of the investigation, one is going to come up against a "lowest common denominator" where every marker will be Indian origin.

What we need to be looking for is the long-term trauma aspects associated with bondage and slavery and any genetic imprint of the same in mt-DNA, lack of potassium is one possibility. Occurrence of scurvy and rickets in target ME populations might be another.

One question we could ask, in the absence of other evidence is:

How come Muslims who are attacking and killing each other ruthlessly nowadays for the most trivial reasons were so noble and high-minded in the past that they only abducted, murdered or raped non Muslims?

What made them change?

...or have they changed at all?

[Klaus]

In all likelihood, they havent changed at all. For if they had changed, the rest of humanity would have had hopes for them to change their current practices again.

Your point about Hindu Kush == Mussalman Kush ties in neatly with Arabs calling the neo-converted sdre's in TSP as Hindus. In all likelihood, the pure vs less pure (dark green vs light green) filtering has been going on in Af-Pak for centuries and the chroniclers were coerced into recording the light green deaths as kaffir deaths or Hindu deaths, hence the misnomer of "Hindukush". So its an indication of where the misplaced TFTA racism of Pakis comes from, mostly by insulting and beating down their own mothers.

However, what this filtering out has achieved is that it has created a strategic reversal of the Indic chasing out the Yavana, which was manifested first with Krishna (and Kalayavana) and much later with Purushottama (and Alex). We saw a partial re-emergence of that with Maharana Sanga and the dance-court yavanis but that was much within India proper.

[JwalaMukhi]

Could "Hindu Kush" have been just as much "Mussalman kush". After all no Muslim invader/slave trader would have admitted that he was abducting or raping Muslims. .

No no it can't be. Let me explain. We have come a full circle and back to Taseer,albeit - Senior this time (light green variety). Absolutely, there was no compulsion to identify the victims as "mohammaden kush", precisely because, the murders and rapists were at liberty to identify and call those who they pillaged and raped as "hindus". Ask Mumtaj Qadri, he would readily identify Taseer Senior as non-musalman (quite possibly him as a hindu) and hence he was murdered.
Not that Taseer Senior was enlightened variety, he just was a compromiser who sought temporary shelter and reprieve from the true believers by identifying himself as musalaman. This compromiser would not blink an eye at promoting the death of who he considers as to be non-muslaman. Namely, he would facilitate murder of hindus to just prove that he could be accepted into the fold of being a true arab. He was pally pally with jihadis in uniform and would promote their machinations against "hindu India".

There are quite a bit of lessons to be learned for hindus too. Any compromise with an ideology that seeks to spread peace is at best a temporary reprieve. If not confronted head on, peace will engulf eventually just as Taseer Senior experienced.

[RajeshA]

But let me add a revisionist twist to the narrative. Until very recently - 1970s-80s IIRC people from Pakistan, Muslim as they were, were called "Hindus" by Arabs. I personally met a Palestinian who said that Pakistanis are Hindus. To him, the language and culture of Pakistan was not shia, it was not Arab. It was "Hindu". This angered Pakistanis a great deal, but it remains a fact. The idea of Pakistan may have existed in Djinnah's brain, but not among Arab peoples.

shiv saar,

this is true. Until recently, and you have mentioned the right time-frame 1970s-80s, the Arabs used to refer to Pakistanis as Hindus!

The term for the whole region, starting from even West of Indus all the way to Bangladesh and beyond was for the Arabs 'Hindistan' and the natives were 'Hindus'! It was not predominantly a marker of religion of the native, but of his origin!

The Islamization of Pakistan is still a recent development, i.e. looking at it historically. One can orient oneself according to the 1941 census. Until 1947 Lahore was 34.7% Dharmic (Hindu+Sikh). Karachi was 51% Hindu.

A couple of hundred years back it was just the ruling clans who were Muslims, who either claimed their ancestry from out-of-India (Central Asia, Persia, Arab Peninsula), or were those clans (Rajputs, Jats) who had converted to Islam. The vast majority of lower castes remained Hindu till about a couple of hundred years ago.

Rape and Abduction were on the one side Islamically-sanctioned means for fulfilling the infernal requirements of the mighty, but these were also instruments used to coerce the people into converting to Islam, thus enabling them to save themselves. In the end, such instruments, jiziya, brutality all ensured that more and more people did convert, but still till 1947 there still remained a substantial number of Dharmics in Pakistan.

We have to differentiate how the word 'Hindu' was used among the various people. For the Arabs sitting in far off lands, all Pakistanis were Hindus. There was no concept of Pakistan, and it did not take root until the 1970s-80s. Among the Hindus there the Kufr and the Muslims. But the land continued to be defined historically and by the majority in the region - Kufr Hindus! Of course the Arabs knew that this ocean of Hindus (both Kufr and Muslims) were being ruled by true Islamic Ghazis from Central Asia, to whom they could go and look for employment.

Even those clans which had converted still saw themselves as Natives, as Of-the-Land, as Bhumiputras and only started then differentiating themselves from Dharmics, in order to assert their higher status and their right to freedom from oppression, and started using the terminology Muslims for themselves and Hindus for others. This terminology of differentiation was however still not widely used either among Arabs far away or even in the Mughal ruling class, which came from outside. They still used to call even the converted as Hindus, due to their origin, and only used the word 'Kufr' as religious differentiator.

Those who retained their original Dharmic faiths, they had no need for the use of such terminology. They were all Bhumiputras, and in the language of the foreigners, they were willing to call themselves Hindus as well. Their faiths were Sanatan Dharma, Sikhism, or whatever. For them, for us, 'Hindu' was not a religious marker. It only became a religious marker when the Converted started this differentiation - Muslim vs. Hindu, to escape their own external identification with the faith of the natives. Later on the British institutionalized this differentiation and the use of 'Hindu' to pertain not only to ethnicity but also to faith.

The Pakistani felt irritated by the Arab's use of term 'Hindu' to refer to him, because he saw it as being a statement on his faith, as well as repudiating his higher status he had in Pakistan as different from the 'Hindu'! For the Arab it was just an ethnic designation.

The Hindus themselves came to accept the term 'Hindu' only because it was widespread among the rulers to refer to them, among Mughals, among the Converted and later on among the British, where it got institutionalized.

We have to keep the use of the term 'Hindu' in perspective! It has/had different connotations for

1. those living outside Indian Subcontinent,
2. those non-Subcontinentals who were rulers in India,
3. the Native Converts from the Local Power Elite,
4. the Native Converts from among the masses,
5. Dharmics in the Indian Subcontinent.

I really don't understand the point about "Indian" slaves being taken to Pakistan! Pakistan was India Central! The place was teeming with Indians already! What is the point of bringing slaves for further corners of India to that place?

In fact this was the point of talking about it in the Pakistan thread. (This thread is a change of direction) The area that was Pakistan was teeming with "Indians" who were Hindus. Once the Ghaznavids came in using Islamic fervor to subjugate, kill or enslave, being "Indians" in India did not matter. It was Hindu slaves in India. What mattered was loot and religion. With an outsize number of Hindus, the enslavement, rape or killing of Hindus in the area that is now Pakistan became the norm since Hindus were in a majority at the outset.

As far as I can figure out the Hindus in the area called Pakistan has three choices
1. To flee east into what is now Indian Punjab and thence onto the plains or the south. These were the people who brought the stories of atrocities and their descendants retain the memories posted on BRF
2. To get killed
3. To get enslaved and converted by force.

The Pakistanis of today are not the descendants of the Hindus who fled and retained their religion in India. They are also not the ones who were killed straight off. The Pakistanis of today are the descendants of those who were raped, enslaved and converted by force. Theer is overwhelming genetic evidence for this. This group - born from rape and mayhem, who call themselves "Pakistani" now have an Islamic narrative of their own. This Pak-Islamic narrative is something like this:

"Our glorious ancestors came from the north and west. We defeated the inferior Hindus and took their lands. We enslaved them and subjugated them."

This narrative leaves out some fundamental facts. The "we" who came from central Asia raped and enslaved the Hindu people of what is now Pakistan. During the initial decades and centuries the area likely remained predominantly Hindu, and that allowed the local rulers to use those Hindus as slaves, as well as to export them to other lands. The area that is now called Pakistan served as a rich source of Hindus for enslavement, until slave trade became difficult.

Add to this fact the narratives of the slave trade by sunni central Asian slave traders. They considered Hindus as well as Persian shias as good for slavery. Slaves came from both areas. Clearly Islam alone was not a factor in grabbing slaves. To me this means that any SDRE from the Pakistan area could have been a "Hindu" who could be enslaved. It is likely that the mere naming of oneself as Abdul or Ayesha did not exempt the person living in the area called Pakistan from being grabbed as slave. If I was resident there - getting my tip lopped off and reciting the culleemer would not be enough for a slave trader to say "Hey this strong young man is circumcised and recites the culleemer. Let me leave him out and look for an uncircumcised dhoti"

The point I am making here is that not only were the people in the area called Pakistan enslaved, they were also exported in large numbers under the name "Hindu slaves". Their specific religion may not have mattered much.

This is where our views diverge. The naming of oneself as Abdul and Ayesha did exempt one from slavery! If it did not exempt, then the people would have had no reason to convert to Islam.

You are mixing up the designations Arabs used sitting in West Asia to refer to natives of the Indian Subcontinent with the local dynamics in the Subcontinent, or in current Pakistan. There were still many many Hindus to trade as slaves in the region. There was no need to target the Converted. It is only recently that Hindus have become 'extinct' in Pakistan, and the earlier abuse of Hindus to the same level is not possible, i.e. in percentage and numbers. Even in British times the abuse had come down - to some extent due to the Brits needing to show who is the boss, but largely due to the thrashing Maharaja Ranjit Singh gave to the Pushtun, Punjabi Converts, and 'Mughals'!

If this were true, why do Hindus complain so much about Islamic slavery? Why are the people of Pakistan not complaining that their ancestors were taken as slaves? Only two explanations come to my mind

1. Pakis have no intention of being critical of Islamic raiders because the identify themselves with those rapine Islamic raiders despite overwhelming genetic and cultural evidence that they are Indians.

or..

2. Pakis were the conquerors and rulers. Hindu Indians were the slaves, the subjugated. To hell with genetic and cultural evidence.

What do you think folks?

Both are true. There were many Pakjabi Clans which Converted and they adopted the ways of the Outsiders (Central Asians, Persians, Arabs, Pushtuns)!

Obviously the process of conversion wiped out the memory of oppression, enslavement, rape and abduction. Through conversion the victim came to identify himself with the perpetrator. But among those who did not convert the historical memory is still alive, as it should be!