BJP justifies Sangeet Som, says Muslim rule in India was barbaric

Agencies
October 16, 2017

New Delhi, Oct 16: The BJP today described the Muslim rule in India as "barbaric and a period of incomparable intolerance", while asserting that its members can hold any opinion they want on specific monuments.

The BJP's reaction came after Sangeet Som, its MLA from Uttar Pradesh, questioned the Taj Mahal's place in history and said the presence of Mughals in India's history is "unfortunate".

Asked about the BJP's stand on Som's comments on the Taj Mahal, built by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife, party spokesperson G V L Narasimha Rao said the party does not have any view on specific monuments and its members can hold whatever opinion they have.

"But as far as the Muslim, Mughal rule in this country is concerned, that period can only be described as exploitative, barbaric and a period of incomparable intolerance which harmed Indian civilisation and traditions immensely," he told PTI.

Rao also lashed out at All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader and Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi after the latter attacked the BJP over Som's comments. Responding to Som's comments, Owaisi asked if the government would tell tourists not to visit the Taj Mahal.

"Even in the present times, Mulim leaders such as Owaisi exhibit the same level of intolerance as Muslim rulers once displayed," Rao said, in response to Owaisi's remarks.

Comments

Abdullah
 - 
Tuesday, 17 Oct 2017

Hahahah... What a joke!!!

 

What these RSS Terrorists contributed for India? They supported British. If you search in history Muslims taught them everything. Even they were not knowing how to bath, how to wear clothes, how to cook, how to build buildings. All the food recipe they learnt from Muslims. These aryans run away from Iran and now looting our India. All the Buildings and culture they are using were built by Muslims. What did they build??? Toilets????

 

KHAN
 - 
Tuesday, 17 Oct 2017

AS PER WIKIPEDIA,

 

The Mughal Empire (Urdu: مغلیہ سلطنت‎‎, translit. Mughliyah Salṭanat)[7] or Mogul Empire,[8] self-designated as Gurkani (Persian: گورکانیان‎‎, Gūrkāniyān, meaning "son-in-law"),[9] was an empire in the Indian subcontinent, founded in 1526. It was established and ruled by a Muslim dynasty with Turco-Mongol Chagatai roots from Central Asia,[10][11][12] but with significant Indian Rajput and Persian ancestry through marriage alliances;[13][14] only the first two Mughal emperors were fully Central Asian, while successive emperors were of predominantly Rajput and Persian ancestry.[15] The dynasty was Indo-Persian in culture,[16] combining Persianateculture[8][17] with local Indian cultural influences[16] visible in its traits and customs.[18]

The Mughal Empire at its peak extended over nearly all of the Indian subcontinent[5] and large parts of Afghanistan. It was the second largest empire to have existed in the Indian subcontinent, spanning four million square kilometres at its zenith,[4] after only the Maurya Empire, which spanned five million square kilometres. The Mughal Empire began a period of proto-industrialization,[19]and Mughal India became the world's largest economic power, with 24.4% of world GDP,[20] and the world leader in manufacturing,[21] producing 25% of global industrial output up until the 18th century.[22] The Mughal Empire is considered "India's last golden age"[23] and one of the three Islamic Gunpowder Empires (along with the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Persia).[24]

The beginning of the empire is conventionally dated to the victory by its founder Babur over Ibrahim Lodi, the last ruler of the Delhi Sultanate, in the First Battle of Panipat (1526). The Mughal emperors had roots in the Turco-Mongol Timurid dynasty of Central Asia, claiming direct descent from both Genghis Khan (founder of the Mongol Empire, through his son Chagatai Khan) and Timur (Turco-Mongol conqueror who founded the Timurid Empire). During the reign of Humayun, the successor of Babur, the empire was briefly interrupted by the Sur Empire. The "classic period" of the Mughal Empire started in 1556 with the ascension of Akbar the Great to the throne. Under the rule of Akbar and his son Jahangir, the region enjoyed economic progress as well as religious harmony, and the monarchs were interested in local religious and cultural traditions. Akbar was a successful warrior who also forged alliances with several Hindu Rajput kingdoms. Some Rajput kingdoms continued to pose a significant threat to the Mughal dominance of northwestern India, but most of them were subdued by Akbar. All Mughal emperors were Muslims; Akbar, however, propounded a syncretic religion in the latter part of his life called Dīn-i Ilāhī, as recorded in historical books like Ain-i-Akbari and Dabistān-i Mazāhib.[25]

The Mughal Empire did not try to intervene in the local societies during most of its existence, but rather balanced and pacified them through new administrative practices[26][27] and diverse and inclusive ruling elites,[28] leading to more systematic, centralised, and uniform rule.[29] Traditional and newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, the Pashtuns, the Hindu Jats and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience.[30][31][32][33]

The reign of Shah Jahan, the fifth emperor, between 1628 and 1658 was the golden age of Mughal architecture. He erected several large monuments, the best known of which is the Taj Mahal at Agra, as well as the Moti Masjid, Agra, the Red Fort, the Jama Masjid, Delhi, and the Lahore Fort. The Mughal Empire reached the zenith of its territorial expanse during the reign of Aurangzeb and also started its terminal decline in his reign due to Maratha military resurgence under Shivaji Bhosale. During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent, ruling over more than 150 million subjects, nearly one quarter of the world's population at the time, with a GDP of over $90 billion.[34][35]

By the mid-18th century, the Marathas had routed Mughal armies and won over several Mughal provinces from the Punjab to Bengal.[36] Internal dissatisfaction arose due to the weakness of the empire's administrative and economic systems, leading to its break-up and declarations of independence of its former provinces by the Nawab of Bengal, the Nawab of Awadh, the Nizam of Hyderabad and other small states. In 1739, the Mughals were crushingly defeated in the Battle of Karnal by the forces of Nader Shah, the founder of the Afsharid dynasty in Persia, and Delhi was sacked and looted, drastically accelerating their decline. During the following century Mughal power had become severely limited, and the last emperor, Bahadur Shah II, had authority over only the city of Shahjahanabad. He issued a firman supporting the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and following the defeat was therefore tried by the British East India Company for treason, imprisoned and exiled to Rangoon.[37] The last remnants of the empire were formally taken over by the British, and the Government of India Act 1858 let the British Crown formally assume direct control of India in the form of the new British Raj.

Abu Muhammad
 - 
Monday, 16 Oct 2017

Aryan cowboys who invaded India, enslved the original inhabitants destroying their culture, imposed Vedic divisive foreign inhuman cast system. India is still suffering from their terror mindset. They are the people who supported the British and responsible for death of millions of Indian freedom fighters. These traitors who licked the British boots, now lecuring us about patriotism. When Mughals came to this land, there was no India, they built India and contributed richly to its history. If these anti-human gang cant digest the truth, let them NOT use any of the Mughal or Muslims  contribution and jump into Sarayu or Ganga enmasse.

Sharief
 - 
Monday, 16 Oct 2017

If Owais is committing intolerance,  Oh Blind, deaf, dumb  BJP  chelas, puffets, what the hell is happening specially in UP, is it tolerance? Killing in the name of gow rakshaks, killing small children, is it tolerance?

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 26,2020

Feb 26: Looking out over the world’s largest cricket stadium, the seats jammed with more than 100,000 people, India’s prime minister heaped praise on his American visitor.

“The leadership of President Trump has served humanity,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Monday, highlighting Trump’s fight against terrorism and calling his 36-hour visit to India a watershed in India-U.S. relations.

The crowds cheered. Trump beamed.

“The ties between India and the U.S. are no longer just any other partnership,” Modi said. “It is a far greater and closer relationship.”

India, it seems, loves Donald Trump. It seemed obvious from the thousands who turned out to wave as his motorcade snaked through the city of Ahmedabad, and from the tens of thousands who filled the city’s new stadium. It seemed obvious from the hug that Modi gave Trump after he descended from Air Force One, and from the hundreds of billboards proclaiming Trump’s visit.

But it’s not so simple.

Because while Trump is genuinely popular in India, his clamorous and carefully choreographed welcome was also about Asian geopolitics, China’s growing power and a masterful Indian politician who gave his American visitor exactly what he wanted.

Modi “is doing this not necessarily because he loves Trump,” said Tanvi Madan, the director of the India Project at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. “It’s very much about Trump as the leader of the U.S. and recognizing what it is that Trump himself likes.”

Trump likes crowds — big crowds — and the foot soldiers of India’s political parties have long known how to corral enough people to make any politician look popular. In a city like Ahmedabad, the capital of Modi’s home state of Gujarat and the center of his power base, it wouldn’t take much effort to fill a cavernous sports stadium. It was more surprising that a handful of seats remained empty, and that some in the stands had left even before Trump had finished his speech.

For India, good relations with the U.S. are deeply important: They signal that India is a serious global player, an issue that has long been important to New Delhi, and help cement an alliance that both nations see as a counterweight to China’s rise.

“For both countries, their biggest rival is China,” said John Echeverri-Gent, a professor at the University of Virginia whose research often focuses on India. “China is rapidly expanding its presence in the Indian Ocean, which India has long considered its backyard and its exclusive realm for security concerns.”

“It’s very clearly a major concern for both India and the United States,” he said.

Trump isn’t the first U.S. president that Modi has courted. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama was the first American chief guest at India’s Republic Day parade, a powerful symbolic gesture. Obama also got a Modi hug, and the media in both countries were soon writing about the two leaders’ “bromance.”

Trump is popular in India, even if some of that is simply because he’s the U.S. president. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll showed that 56% of Indians had confidence in Trump’s abilities in world affairs, one of only a handful of countries where he has that level of approval. But Obama was also popular: Before he left office, he had 58% approval in world affairs among Indians.

The Pew poll also indicated that Trump’s support was higher among supporters of Modi’s Hindu nationalist party.

That’s not surprising. Both men have fired up their nationalist bases with anti-Muslim rhetoric and government policies, from Trump’s travel bans to Modi’s crackdown in Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state.

And Trump’s Indian support is far from universal. Protests against his trip roiled cities from New Delhi to Hyderabad to the far northeastern city of Gauhati, although those demonstrations were mostly overshadowed by protests over a new Indian citizenship law that Modi backs.

Modi, who is widely popular in India, has faced weeks of protests over the law, which provides fast track naturalization for some foreign-born religious minorities — but not Muslims. While Trump talked about ties with India on Tuesday, Hindus and Muslims fought in violent clashes that left at least 10 people dead over two days.

In some ways, Modi and Trump are powerful echoes of each other.

They have overlapping political styles. Both are populists who see themselves as brash, rule-breaking outsiders who disdain their countries’ traditional elites. Both are seen by their critics as having authoritarian leanings. Both surround themselves with officials who rarely question their decisions.

But are they friends?

Trump says yes. “Really, we feel very strongly about each other,” he said at a New Delhi press briefing.

But many observers aren’t so sure.

“The question is how much of this is real chemistry, as opposed to what I’d call planned chemistry” orchestrated for diplomatic reasons, said Madan. “It’s so hard to know if you’re not in the room.”

Certainly, Modi understands America’s importance to India. While the two countries continue to bicker about trade issues, the prime minister organized a welcome that impressed even India’s news media, which have watched countless choreographed mass political rallies.

“There is no other country for whose leader India would hold such an event, and for which an Indian prime minister would lavish such rhetoric,” the Hindustan Times said in an editorial.

“The spectacle and the sound were worth a thousand agreements.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 2,2020

New Delhi, Feb 2: Budget 2020 announcement that insurance behemoth LIC will be listed was well received by market participants who said this will be "IPO of the decade" akin to the Saudi Aramco listing.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Saturday said Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) will be listed as part of the government disinvestment initiative.

A "highlight of the budget is the LIC IPO, which is akin to the Saudi Aramco listing for Indian capital markets, and will be IPO of the decade," Vijay Bhushan, President, Association of National Exchanges Members of India (ANMI) said.

According to Krishna Kumar Karwa, Managing Director, Emkay Global Financial Services, the LIC IPO will be a big positive for corporate governance and transparency and will open up one more avenue for fund raising for the government over the years.

Metropolitan Stock Exchange, Interim CEO, Balu Nair said: "The LIC listing will be eagerly awaited by investors and will provide huge fillip to capital raising through the primary market." The government proposes to sell a part of its holding in LIC through an initial public offer, Sitharaman said while presenting Budget 2020-21.

"The government will sell part of LIC through its listing in the stock market which is also a positive trigger for the market," Amit Gupta, CO-Founder and CEO, TradingBells.

Jaideep Hansraj, MD and CEO of Kotak Securities said listing of LIC would help bridge a gap in the Fiscal Deficit for FY21.

Currently, the government owns the entire 100 per cent stake in LIC.

Saudi Aramco shares were listed in December last year.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 10,2020

Udupi, Feb 10: The throat swabs of three suspected coronavirus patients in Udupi that was sent for tests have come back as negative.

Throat swabs of three persons who got admitted at a district government hospital in Udupi with symptoms of fever on Friday was sent to Bangalore medical college and research institute for test to know whether the admitted persons who returned from China 15 days back had contracted coronavirus.

The 30-year-old man from Kaup taluk had been China on personal work and had returned to Udupi 15 days back. Upon showing the symptoms of fever, throat pain and cold, he was suggested to get admitted.

He was admitted in the isolation ward and was directed to remain under quarantine till the observation period ends and till the test report is obtained.

Another family from Mandarthi, a man and his wife, who had returned after a tour from China 15 days back were also kept under observation at the isolation ward in the district government hospital, Udupi.

Udupi DC G Jagadish has said that there are no coronavirus case reported in Udupi and people need not panic. Sources said that the three tested negatives for coronavirus in Udupi will be discharged from the hospital on Monday.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.