Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Take a look and read this article:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.htm#t

I had previously heard of the Hindu wars but never heard of a holocaust. Is this propaganda or someone actually asking for revise of history of events that happen in a part of the world we hardly pay attention too? Did historians missed this on purpose or it was just ignore?

Nanking/Nanjing holocaust is also not as well known as the nazi death camps

Quite so. And those that presided over them are revered albeit in a small way.

I remember my dad telling me something about that. The worst is the story of tamerlane storming delhi sometime in the medival times. He killed 70,000 people but he choped all thier heads off and piled them in heaps. Very disturbing history moment to me. Also many sikhs (northern Indian religion) were killed by the muslims rulers but they actually fought back really hard.

It is not made up, but that i high a number i am not sure. But it did happen 100% true.

I don't think it is completely ignored but this particular holocaust that was perpetrated spanned hundreds of years vs just a few short years of the European and Asian holocausts of world war 2,that is also the most recent and being that most participants were westernised cultures is probably why our history mostly focus's on that one and seemingly forgets the atrocities on the rest of the world.

Indeed, while I never knew about this one, it is safe to say that they were less recent than people would remember.

Isn't that kind of like how American's widely acknowledge Hiroshima and Nakagawa...and generally tend to know nothing at all about Dresden.

I know it's quite a stretch...but with enough alcohol in your system...you can almost make a connection.

I don't know about that link. But I do like what BK said about time span and geography of the events. That's what plays a big part in history sometimes. Since the Jewish Holocaust is the most recent is bound to be the talk for years and years. I think that also revisionism in history will also help to find other events that haven't been recorded in our books.

in june 1984 the sikhs holiest temple was destroyed by the indian goveernment, a small handful of sikhs fought back against a whole army for 3 days!! then in november 1984 the sikhs took revenge and killed indian prime misiter, and then the hindus ritoed and killed all sikhs, women children,everyone, they raped, burned people alive etc. it was brutal

The World is not ignoring it
There are 3 reasons why this holocaust in Indie is not so popular
as for example the Holocaust of the Nazis.

First: The holocaust of the nazis happened in a time of mass communication, everybody in the world hear about this holocaust in radio, newspapers and could even see the pictures in television. There wasn't a similar situation in the time when the indian holocaust happened.

Second: History is written by the winners, so the winners of the second world war make popular the holocaust.

Third: The nazi holocaust killed about 9 million people in just 12 years, the holocaust in Indie takes hundreds of years.

there are many times in history when single groups were attacked and killed.



I remember that and i say the Indian government purposely killed thousands in that temple. I doubt all 5-10 thousand people in there were so called terrorists. Indian Government wanted to kill the Sikhs, an the evidence is what happened at the golden temple. Also the riots in Delhi were set up because the mobs that killed people were really organized with weapons,car, gas, oil and i doubt it could have been collected in a few hours without the help of corrupt government official. To me that whole time was one big conspiracy by the Indian government to kill the Sikhs.

To compare millions getting killed through centuries of almost
constant warfare and chaos, with millions getting killed through
willful policy of mass-murder is not fair, to sayt he least.

The fact is, millions of Chinese, as well of west-, Central Asian
muslims lost their lives during the Mongol invasions and wars
of the 13-14th centuries, but I wouldn't compare that in "nature"
to the WWII Holocaust. Probably even more than those of India
in those five centuries, and here in only less than half the time.

The Middle Ages, like Ancient Times, and indeed much of human
history, was filled with constant warfare and violence, where more
often than not human life was worth little to rulers and soldiers
(much like today, though today the civilian populations,
especially in the West, is less tolerant of their leaders commiting
mass atrocities).

A better comparison with the WWII Holocaust, would be the
Armenian Genocide, or Rwanda, or the mass killing of the North
American Indians.

That site was just sectarian propoganda. Probably run by one
of those extremist Hindu "nationalists" who hate Muslims,
Christians, and Buddhists with equal fervor.

...it's sad, man.

Originally posted by King Burger
To compare millions getting killed through centuries of almost
constant warfare and chaos, with millions getting killed through
willful policy of mass-murder is not fair, to sayt he least.

The fact is, millions of Chinese, as well of west-, Central Asian
muslims lost their lives during the Mongol invasions and wars
of the 13-14th centuries, but I wouldn't compare that in "nature"
to the WWII Holocaust. Probably even more than those of India
in those five centuries, and here in only less than half the time.

The Middle Ages, like Ancient Times, and indeed much of human
history, was filled with constant warfare and violence, where more
often than not human life was worth little to rulers and soldiers
(much like today, though today the civilian populations,
especially in the West, is less tolerant of their leaders commiting
mass atrocities).

A better comparison with the WWII Holocaust, would be the
Armenian Genocide, or Rwanda, or the mass killing of the North
American Indians.

That site was just sectarian propoganda. Probably run by one
of those extremist Hindu "nationalists" who hate Muslims,
Christians, and Buddhists with equal fervor.

I don't think is about comparison in the full sense of the word. I think is more like awareness and educating and informing people that this happen.

Before posting their site, I check to see if it was an extremist site:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/aimsplans.htm

I don't think they're extremists.....maybe bias...but extremist? no.

bias, every group has extremsits!

Originally posted by Linkalicious
Isn't that kind of like how American's widely acknowledge Hiroshima and Nakagawa...and generally tend to know nothing at all about Dresden.

I know it's quite a stretch...but with enough alcohol in your system...you can almost make a connection.

Why must everything come back to America bashing? I know that the perception is that Americans are short sighted narcisissts who care only about ourselves, but that is far from realistic. Most Americans are good, humane and tolerant people. I am not blind to the fact that there are those that are bigoted and selfcentered but they are hardly in the majority. It just so happens, as with everything else, the bad stuff is what gets reported and discussed....

If you look at how long ago it was, you will find your reason.
ITs so long ago that some of the facts cannot be accurate and its bound to be forgotton...

Originally posted by King Burger
A better comparison with the WWII Holocaust, would be the
Armenian Genocide, or Rwanda, or the mass killing of the North
American Indians.
Now, I know my opinion is a little compromised considering that I'm Native. ("American" But, I agree with this statement. That's all I came in to say.

Originally posted by bilb
Why must everything come back to America bashing? I know that the perception is that Americans are short sighted narcisissts who care only about ourselves, but that is far from realistic. Most Americans are good, humane and tolerant people. I am not blind to the fact that there are those that are bigoted and selfcentered but they are hardly in the majority. It just so happens, as with everything else, the bad stuff is what gets reported and discussed....


Too true, too true.

Though the number of a**holes here in this country is
growing, sadly.

Originally posted by manny321
bias, every group has extremsits!

Come over and visit:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t328247.html

Okay i'm from India and I have to say I never heard bout this before. I guess here there are like communal riots every year or so.

So unfortunately ppl die all the time

ther have been many genocides and massacres that the american and australian governments have had their respected hands in that they dont want the public to know of.

in east timor the indonesians killed nearly a third of the population in one war, killing anyone, women, children, elderly, wounded, anyone who was from east timor. the american government and the australian governments both knew of this and both stood by while hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were butchered.

in the gulf war, the american government allowed the massacre of thousands of retreating Iraqi conscripts, not layal followers of Suddam but people forced into the army. the ammount of audinence used on these people was more than what was dropped in the whole last year of WW2. there are photos and videos of american troops using bulldozers to pile bodies into ditches, these photos were suppressed for many years due to the obvious similarity to the nazis destroying jewish bodies.

then there is the now infamous My lai massacre by Charlie Company in the Vietnam war. 500 innocent women, children and elderly were killed. in the whole day, not one viet cong soldier was seen and only three weapons were found. the only american casualty was a trooper who shot himself in the foot. soldiers admitted to scalping, cutting out toungsm decapitations, disembowling, carving "c company" in chests and bodies layed 5 deep in ditches. when the comander saw a infant crawling out of one of the ditches, he picked it up, threw it into the pit and shot it. the only person who tried to stop the massacre was one helicopter pilot (Hugh Thompson who later testified against the army) who landed his chopper and started helping the fleeing civilians get to safety. he instructed his machine gunner to shoot the next american he saw shooting civilians. the american leaders had given them orders to kill everyone, including children. the government begun the cover up instantly, telling of a viet cong strong hold the soldiers took despite heavy fire. this was all horse shit and in the end the truth was reveiled through some of the troops there that day.

not only have these attorcitys been commited but in the gulf war, the american army broke every law layed down in the Kyoto Treaty

whoa...that's a whole lot of writing.....

genocide is the logical end of hate. If we didn't use race for a code of hate we'd pick something else, heck we do pick others: religion, class

It's sad.

But there's still good in the world, somewhere

Originally posted by manny321
I remember my dad telling me something about that. The worst is the story of tamerlane storming delhi sometime in the medival times. He killed 70,000 people but he choped all thier heads off and piled them in heaps. Very disturbing history moment to me. Also many sikhs (northern Indian religion) were killed by the muslims rulers but they actually fought back really hard.


Sounds cool

its a legendary story from those parts and it widely known by historians.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Take a look and read this article:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.htm#t

I had previously heard of the Hindu wars but never heard of a holocaust. Is this propaganda or someone actually asking for revise of history of events that happen in a part of the world we hardly pay attention too? Did historians missed this on purpose or it was just ignore?

WD, there are so many of such killings, and many people fail to recognise it. Sad. Very sad.

Great article though. Thanks for posting it.

I'm glad you read the article lil. Indeed is very sad when events like this holocaust happen. The problem is.....that people will always question if it really happen.

Its true 100%. The real numbers i am not sure and none of us are, but the mughals did kill any hindu who would not become a muslim in the 1400-1700's!

Not true!

If that were true, then the India would be predominantly muslim
today. But it isn't is it?


The same bulls*** is said in Spain and the Balkans, about how
those horrible muslims forced everyone to convert, or die. Yet
in all those places the populations remained overwhelmingly
christian when muslim rule was ended, even after centuries of
islamic rule.


The fact is, many of these stories of forced religious conversions,
whether by muslims or by christians, are either false, or are
exaggerated.

Originally posted by manny321
Its true 100%. The real numbers i am not sure and none of us are, but the mughals did kill any hindu who would not become a muslim in the 1400-1700's!

I am not being biased but, infact sikhs actually protected hindus and all other religions from the mughals, infact theirs a quite famous saying in INdia ,that if it were not for the sikhs the whole of india would have been circumsied (Meaning made muslim)

Originally posted by King Burger
Not true!

If that were true, then the India would be predominantly muslim
today. But it isn't is it?

Lets revise history, shall we?

Pakistan - part of India in the time of British rule.
When Independence was granted in 1947, the muslims in India demanded they needed a separate country.
It was refused which led to a bloody civil war.
Non violent hindus agreed to a Pakistan just to avoid unnecessary killing. Pakistan drove out or killed every Hindu who chose to remain there.

Religion in Pakistan - Muslim 97% (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%),

Christian, Hindu, and other 3%


So dont talk shit, please.

Ever heard of Nadir Shah? He wiped out the whole population of Delhi in a single day!


There is no ''overexaggeration'' of the fact that people India died and the ways in which many of them died. They died, and they suffered for a very long time!

Are there funadmentalist Hundus? Hell yes! There are fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, everywhere, but Indian history is rather clear and very bloody!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So dont talk shit, please.


Now who's using bad language here?!



Silly arguements.


So what is Nadir Shah destroyed Delhi? The shamanist Mongols
destroyed Baghdad, but you don't hear me blaming it on
there religion, though it had elements that may have been use
to justify it.

Most of Tamerlane's victims were muslims.

The Catholic Crusaders ravaged Constantinople, a Christian
city.


Massacres and destructions like these are commited by many
people, regardless of religion. Religion never prompted such
a massacre, any more than it stopped it.

And I never argued differently!

Religious violence is a product of fundamentalism and extremism.

Ignorance + arrogance = religious fundamentalism and extremism.


You were the one going on about religion in India - I explained why India is still hindu.
And religious violence is still happening, and how can it not, when pretty much most books of religious nature talk about some kind of violence on one form or another, and just enough for people to misinterpret as they see fit.


Edit - apart from Triptaka

"I am not being biased but, in fact Sikhs actually protected Hindus and all other religions from the mughals, in fact theirs a quite famous saying in India ,that if it were not for the Sikhs the whole of India would have been circumcised (Meaning made Muslim)"


True, if it wasn't for the martyrdom of the ninth Sikh guru or prophet, India would be a Muslim country. Also in 1947 the riots the anti Hindu/Sikh riots in Pakistan and anti Muslim riots in India killed hundreds of thousands perhaps millions. One of the most saddest time in its history.
The mughals wanted to in 1400-1700 wanted everyone to become Muslim or they were killed killed.
This is true as a recall a big battle where tens of thousands of Sikhs were massacred in one big battle in northern India in the 1700's against the mughals who wanted to wipe them out. The mughlas in India wanted to wipe out other religions in India especially in its northern India. Don't start people, my background is from this area. Yeah i called them mughals not mongols!

If you want to force people to convert, it can be done. It's difficult,
and will require alot of bloodshed, but it can be done, and has
been done!

The Spaniards in the New World wanted everyone to be Christian.

Guess what? Everyone became Christian within a century or so.

Yet that didn't happen in India, did it? It happened in Mexico and much
of South America, yet not India, why? Because the Hindus were more
sophisticated and therefore more resistant? Probably, but so were the
people of the Mediterranean during the 4-5th centuries AD, but that
didn't stop the Roman Empire from successfully converting most
of them to Christianity.

If the Mughals wanted everyone under their control to convert (I am
aware that the Mughals never controlled all of the Indian sub-continent),
then everyone under their control wouldn've become muslim eventually.

Originally posted by manny321
Don't start people, my background is from this area. Yeah i called them mughals not mongols!

So what?! People can be ignorant or mis-informed about their own
nation's and people's background. You're not immune.

Originally posted by King Burger
yet not India, why? Because the Hindus were more
sophisticated and therefore more resistant?

...or perhaps Hindu religion and culture is older than christian and islamic put together. And that is its place of origin.

So unless they wiped out ALL of Hindus - totally and absolutely, there would be no way in hell anyone could convert them - and they havent.

Do you think that if country invaded Saudi Arabia and situated in Mecca, do you think that people would convert to some random religion from Islam? I think they'd all die first.

For a similar non conversions due to people being in their holy cities, see Jerusalem sitation.

The Mayan faiths were older than Christianity as well.

The worship of Isis and Mithra and Cybele, and the other
ancient dieties of the Mediterranean, were also older than
Christianity and Islam, but the people there converted as
well.


I don't get the Jerusalem reference.


The example of Saudi Arabia is stupid. There are muslims
outside the country as well.

But regardless, monotheistic religions are more tenacious
because they have a very strict written truth, and well as
very strict laws against apostacy. Maybe that makes them
more intolerant, but it also makes them more resilient to
forced conversions.


And the point is that the sub-continent not only did not
become all-muslim, it didn't even become majority muslim.


Oh, and the origins of Hinduism are not in India, but
from outside, brought with the Aryan invaders into the
land.

Okay in what century and time???

What? The Aryan invasions?

I believe at the time of the collape of the Indus Valley Civilization,
around 1800 BC, I think, I believe a bit before the entrance of PIE
speakers (Proto Indo-European Speakers) into Greece.

Hindisum is much older then 1800 BC. My religion book says 3000 BC and people of that faith say it goes back father. However a fifth of India's population is muslim.

the mongols wanted Hindus to convert in 1400-1700. That is fact. If that many people were killed is a differnt story!

How can Hinduism go back to 3000 BC, when the Indus Valley
Civilization began in 2500 BC, and it's religion seems to be
an Earth-goddess type (the written language has not been
deciphered yet)?

Obviously the religion and dieties that the Aryans brought with
them, like the language, merged with indigenous elements to
create Hinduism and Sanskrit. The same thing ahppened in
Greece and other areas iinvaded by PIE speakers. But without
the Aryans, there would be no Hinduims, atleast not the way
it came to be.


But look, whatever you say.

There are Chinese who say their civilization is the oldest in
the world, and that they invented everything.

There are Mexicans who say theat their civilization goes
back 5000 years, instead of the 2500-3000 years.

There are Iranians who say that their civilization, along with
Zoroastrianism, goes back to 6000 BC (!).

Believe whatever you want, my good man.

Originally posted by King Burger



I don't get the Jerusalem reference.


The example of Saudi Arabia is stupid. There are muslims
outside the country as well.

You don't get many things it seems.

Jerusalem and Saudi Arabia both sprung their own religion, Judaism(Christianity) and Islam, just the same as India sprung Hinusim!

There are muslims outside Saudi Arabia, so what? There are Jews outside Jerusalem just as there are Hindus outside India.

There was no way in hell that muslims could have converted Hindus on their own land where their religion (way older than that of islam) begun - they would all ahve to be dead, as they would never convert, just as Muslims in Saudi Arabia would not convert to some religion if that religion invaded and threatened Saudi Arabia and Just as Jews wont convert to Islam or Christianity or voodoo or any other religion, especially because they are in the very centre of where their religion started.

Forced conversion in these placed would have never happened, which also ties with my point in the post above you missed and your claim of ''India isnt perdominantly Muslim''

Not all that difficult.

And noone knows how old Hindusim in reality, so that argument is not going anywher - one thing that is for certain, Hindusim is older than Judaism/Christianity or Islam.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You don't get many things it seems.


Hmm, cute.



No one can get another group to convert in their own
land, or in their religion's own birth-place?

If so, then Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinuism,
Buddhism, and all other religions would never
have spread beyond their birth-places, since every
land the'd go to, would have it's own native religion.

Jerusalem? Where do you think all the Christians
and Muslims there came from? They were people
converted, from Judaism or from the still-pagan
Canaanites. Or maybe you believe that zionist
nonesense that all Christians and Muslims in
the Holy Land are all descendants from foreigners?

The religions of Egypt and Mesopotamis are older
than Hinduism, but that didn't stop the Roman
government frm successfully converting most of the
population into the faith.

ok you people wanna talk fair

what about 14th august 1947 when muslims tried to flee to pakistan so that they could live in a muslims country, but many of them were brutally murdered when they were travelling. crazy stuff happens in every religion

many Hindus/Sikhs were killed going from Pakistan and to India.

Also the thing is King burger no one has any idea how old Hinduism is.

2nd the first civilizations were in present ay iraq.

Horrible.We should had learned about this at school.JM