Mysorean Rockets | Hacker News Reader

Mysorean Rockets

en.wikipedia.org

196 pointsThevet103 comments

"Towards the end of my visit at NASA, I went to the Wallops Flights Facility at Wallops Island in East coast, Virginia. This place was the base for NASA's sounding rocket programme. Here I saw a painting prominently displayed in the reception lobby. It depicted a battle scene with a few rockets flying in the background. A painting with this theme should be the most common place thing at a flight facility, but the painting caught my eye, because the soldiers on the side launching the rockets were not white but were dark skinned, with racial features found in South Asia. It turned out to be Tipu Sultans army fighting the British. The painting depicted a fact forgotten in Tipu's own country but commemorated here on the other side of the planet."

Source — Wings of fire, an autobiography of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

APJ Abdul Kalam was also known as the 'Missile Man of India' for his contribution to the development of India's missile projects, Prithvi and Agni missiles. India became a nuclear power under Kalam who was the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister between 1992 and 1999

He also served as the president of India and was by far the most popular president India had.

There's an interesting episode about Tipu Sultan on the podcast 'Stuff the British Stole' by Marc Fenell ('that movie... guy' for any aussies of a certain age), if anyone is interested.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...

One thing that is curious about the Indian sub-continent is their mythological texts. There are two well-known epic texts: The Mahabhrat and The Ramayan. Both these texts talk about aeroplanes, teleportations, rockets, test-tube baby, body preservation and medicines that heal serious battle injuries. And it is talked about in a matter-of-fact way, as if there is no novelty in these technologies. The frustrating part of these texts is the mixing of facts with fiction. So it becomes difficult to know what was really available back then. But the sheer thought that ancient humans atleast dreamt these advance ideas makes one wonder what type of civilisation was there back then?

I could be wrong because I haven't read unabridged versions of either. My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us.

For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power.

> My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us.

How is the mention of ""vaayu yaan" abstract? Can we similarly say that to the mention of present day "aeroplane" abstract and dismiss it as non-existent?

> For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power.

In present day writings(fiction or otherwise) when we mention flights or aeroplane, we don't mention every nut and bolt of the aeroplane. So saying the ancient text did not give much details is unfair to those texts. As I mentioned in my original post, these advance ideas were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty, similar to how we now mention air travel or space flights.

There is a lack of consistency and continuity. We had aeroplane in stories but no similar ground vehicle like Car/train, which should have been invented earlier if technology was present. We had vision across space/time but no knowledge of places outside India.

We had teleportation ;) Jokes aside, the link between car/trains and aerial vehicles is superficial. There is no hard requirement that one has to come before the other.

> were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty

You've said this twice now. In persuasive writing, once you state a fact, you must draw a conclusion, clearly. Please, draw for me your conclusion.

Since we're asynchronous, it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed: heavier than air flight, spaceflight, test-tube babies, etc. Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Could you point me to the physical proof of these? Because, I feel like these objects would've come up in my readings, before.

If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?

I’ll bite!

The conclusion is that there were ancient civilizations that we don’t currently have archeological evidence for. If you know anything about archeological research in India, you know that it is far, far from comprehensive.

Here’s a small example: Shiva is often represented smoking a chillum. Yet, the accepted understanding is that smoking was developed in the Americas and no smoking in the old world took place pre-1492. It would therefore be a major discovery to establish that a chillum was precolumbian. There simply isn’t a research base (no funding, no training) to investigate even simple questions like this.

Might we find evidence of, say, metallurgy that is 10,000 years old in India? Perhaps! Should we expect to? Probably not. Should we do more archaeological research in India? 100% Who will fund it?

Smoking is attested both archeologically, and historiographically dating back something like 7000 years in the old world. People have been smoking opium & marijuana in the middle east for probably 2000 years. Smoking culture in India goes back at least 3000 years. Anyone who's accidentally put the wrong thing on a fire will immediately recognize the source for "smoking".

This makes me feel like the rest of your comment is probably not accurate, either.

Bro. Smoking is not the same as putting the wrong thing on a fire. And, while evidence of hotboxing cannabis in tents goes back 3000 years, there is minimal evidence of pipe smoking in the old world. Maybe a bit in Africa— but not conclusive.

No evidence for smoking pipes in India before 1500. Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smoking

Nobody thinks smoking originated in the new world. Smoking TOBACCO originated in the new world, because at that time it was the only place tobacco grew.

> it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed

Please read the last line of my original post.

> If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?

I am saying, that the description given in the text is too specific for it to be dismissed right away. And even if it is hokum, then the sheer level of imagination of ancient civilisation to mention flying vehicles, missiles, teleportation, body preservation and test-tube baby is appreciable. It will be good to know what type of civilisation was that that was able to imagine these advance concepts.

> Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them.

Sure, I am all for scientific evidence. In fact I would like to see that it is either supported or refuted with evidence. From some of the comments it looks like for rejecting a hypothesis no evidence is required, but for supporting it evidence is demanded. If there is no evidence to either support or refute it, then the matter should be inconclusive rather than concluding it either way.

Off the top of my head "flying vehicles" and "body preservation" are well-attested in many other cultures (Ancient Egypt; Mayans) that I'm 100% certain had neither. You are for sure reading too much into this.

> And even if it is hokum

I 99% believe that you think these things are real; I don't know if you're a von Danikenite, but you sure talk like one.

> If there is no evidence to either support or refute it

There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes all over the world for centuries, looking for raw materials -- quadruply so, very recently, in the Indian subcontinent. If there was a civilization capable of supporting space-age technology, we'd've found it by now.

> I 99% believe that you think these things are real;

Again, go read the last sentence of my original post.

> There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes....very recently, in the Indian subcontinent.

Hmmm.

I mean, if a complete layperson were to describe how an airplane works, how would you even begin? It looks a bit like a bird and err, it's very loud, and it flies! I mean if you don't know the least about an engine, how would you describe it? There's untold masses of people out there that still lack even a basic education, and that education / class difference was worse as you go back in time.

Anyway, your second sentence reminds me of how we interpret e.g. Nostradamus' writing in hindsight, how he predicted Hitler and 9/11 and all that. But only in hindsight.

There's a weird effect with these things - myths from other cultures seem fascinating and indicate Atlantis-like civilizations. Similar myths from you own culture are obviously just boring metaphors and scary stories to make children behave.

For example the Tower of Babel could be interpreted as aliens destroying a space program (possibly space elevator) with mind-control technology. But with the cultural baggage of the christian civilization we interpret it very differently.

The story about Jericho could be about nuclear weapons or orbital bombardment.

The story about Lazarus could be some advanced medicine.

There's a lot of this stuff in any culture - but they seem more awesome when you weren't indoctrinated about the "correct" interpretations since you were a child.

> For example the Tower of Babel could be interpreted as...

But there is no need for interpretation or misinterpretation of some of these texts because the text directly mentions the transportation e.g. in Raamaayan, the then king of Lanka(present day Shri Lanka), Raavan, flew from Lanka on his "vaayu yaan"(i.e. aeroplane) to Panchavati(in present day Nashik in the western state of Maharashtra in India) to kidnap Sitaa, wife of Raam.

> flew from Lanka on his "vaayu yaan"(i.e. aeroplane)

That id est contains a large interpretive leap. Is every culture's flying chariot also a heavier-than-air flying machine? And every chariot carrying the Moon a lunar lander?

> Is every culture's flying chariot also a heavier-than-air flying machine?

Who said it was a chariot? I think you are linking some "flying chariot" from other text to "vaayu yaan" from some different text. "vaayu" means "air" and "yaan" means "vehicle". This is far more specific that "flying chariot".

> And every chariot carrying the Moon a lunar lander?

Just curious, isn't carrying a Moon very different from landing on the Moon? Equating "carrying a Moon" to "landing on Moon" does not even mean same thing, so that can be thought as extrapolation. But the more specifics of "using vaayu yaan" to travel on earth from Lanka(which exists today) to Panchavati(which also exists today) does not need the extrapolation as was required in the previous sentence.

> "vaayu" means "air" and "yaan" means "vehicle"

Which is a valid translation for most mythology's flying chariots. We use the translation "chariot" because, at the time, the only vehicles we know of in the relevant culture were chariots.

> Which is a valid translation for most mythology's flying chariots.

No, that is not true. Your own sentence use the word "most". In Indian there is a distinction between vehicle("yaan") and chariot("rath").

> We use the translation "chariot" because, at the time, the only vehicles we know of in the relevant culture were chariots.

How do you know? If the ancient text itself makes a distinction between "vaayu yaan" and "rath" then that indicates there were more than one modes of transportation.

That might just mean the authors were smarter than their contemporaries, and realized that an air-traveling vehicle probably wouldn't look like a chariot.

Which does speak to their scientific knowledge, even absent an actual vehicle existing, given that their peers couldn't reason past "this thing we have on land, but in the air."

I’m imagining a similar debate in antiquity as I witness today whenever I suggest a helicopter does all the things people say they want from a flying car.

> Which is a valid translation for most mythology's flying chariots

>> No, that is not true. Your own sentence use the word "most".

This is a non sequitur. The claim was "flying vehicle" is a valid translation for what is commonly translated as "flying chariot" in most cultures, i.e. non-Indian cultures. (It's certainly so for Ancient Egyptian myths, for which, unlike Ramayana, we have contemporaneous sources.)

I'm actually struggling to think of a culture which (a) had, at the very least, chariots or something like them and (b) couldn't have some part of its ancient mythology properly translated as "flying vehicle." Maybe Sumerian?

>> In Indian there is a distinction between vehicle("yaan") and chariot("rath").

Clarification: in modern Hindi.

>> In Indian there is a distinction between vehicle("yaan") and chariot("rath").

> Clarification: in modern Hindi.

https://kosha.sanskrit.today/word/en/Chariot/sa

You don't know Samskrut, do you?

One problem with this line of logic is that we don't have any written text 1000s of years old, so we don't know if the words were changed in later renditions or if the story itself has been modified for changing times.

Vaayu yaan means air travel not aeroplane. Your slight of hand here and overall comment history suggests you're parroting some right wing propaganda. Tell me something, why do people like you always find things that exist now in the past but not things that will exist? If airplanes and testtube babies are mentioned, why aren't there any mentions of things that modern society will invent in a few years, decades or centuries? I'll give you a hint: you don't have them because you can't retrofit those. Once someone invents them, then you can find vaguely related sentences in a large corpus of Indian origin and claim _there was something there_.

"Yaan" mean vehicle in Hindi/Sanskrit.

Prayaan(a) is traveling/marching in Hindi, Gujarati, Kannada. No vehicle involved. Sanskrit and Hindi aren't exchangeable.

"yaan" means both vehicle and travel. You both are correct :)

"Air vehicle" meaning "aeroplane" is an interpretation. I could interpret it as sailing ship for example. Or a ballon. Possibly something like a chinese lampion which were already known 2000 years ago so it's not a big stretch.

> I could interpret it as sailing ship

In air? Then how is it better than the general characterisation as "Air vehicle"?

> Or a ballon.

Yeah, could be. And flying a balloon from Sri Lanka to Nashik(while crossing ocean) and back again would have been an achievement in itself during that period.

> In air?

Why "in" air? Could just mean it's a regular sailing ship - after all they are powered by "air" so they are "air vehicles". Or it could be made out of air. In which case you could claim Indians had inflatable ships thousands of years ago :)

> And flying a balloon from Sri Lanka to Nashik(while crossing ocean) and back again would have been an achievement in itself during that period.

Of course, my point was that there are many possible interpretations and when you say no interpretation is needed you're just showing your cultural baggage.

There's a legend about Pan Twardowski. In it a nobleman makes a deal with the devil and forces him to do various impossible feats to avoid going to hell. One of these feats was "making a whip rope out of sand". Optical fiber is basically a rope made out of sand :) After that the nobleman escaped from the devil and landed on the moon (where he lives to this day).

It's pretty obvious to me that it's just a legend, but if I wanted to interpret it literally then Poles were on the moon in 16th century and had optical internet :)

You interpret "vaayu yaan" as aeroplane, but what is the basis to assume it is something so specific? You just as easily assume they meant something like the flying carpets of Arabian myths.

> they seem more awesome when you weren't indoctrinated about the "correct" interpretations since you were a child

This isn't totally true in India. I've had relatives seriously contemplate ancient Indian civilizations with heavier-than-air flight, nuclear weapons and even orbital capabilities. (A similar thing happened in industrializing Britain and Prussia, so maybe it's just a natural thing in a culture undergoing rapid industrialization.)

As an aside, for those interested : this sort of "paleo-contact" ideas were proposed by Erich von Däniken. Aztec lines are space-ports, the flaming angel from the bible is a landing space craft, etc.

Someone even made a sci-fi cartoon about it, that 8-year-old me enjoyed =) It can't be that hard to find a PDF somewhere.

https://wearethemutants.com/2020/04/30/ancient-astronaut-com...

Debunked as bad science fairly quickly, but, Sodom & Gomorrah being destroyed by a meteor aeroburst is less in the realm of science fiction but a good example of how a natural catastrophe can be retold as folklore and integrated into religious text. IIRC the flood is another one of those that is retold in a wide number of texts/cultures and had scientific evidence behind it? Last one I'm not sure about now.

Most of these were novel and rare mostly given as a boon by the Gods. We also have monkeys, vulture, bear with human like or beyond intelligence. The numbers were off by all practical imaginations. Armies were of order of 10^7 - 10^70.

But but my WhatsApp forward said ancient Indians also had VR and AR so anything is possible. /s

'matter-of-fact' - what is more important is that the after effects/side effect are eerily accurate so makes it hard to dismiss it as mere imagination.

In the Hindu thought, everything is cyclical including the birth and death of the universe. It is not human or earth centric, talks about other planets or worlds requiring space travel, space-time effects of travel. Nagas - advanced reptilian people who precede humans and in some stories come to the aid of humans sound alien or a parallel species.

It’s just sci fi. If you read a modern sci fi book you’ll find casual references to spaceplanes, wormholes, and stuff like that.

In many of them, the characters won’t even remark about the wormholes. It’s normal.

Like almost all ancient literature, Gods are just the primary medium via which the ideas are delivered. So sci fi becomes divine sci fi, drama becomes divine drama, etc.

Yep, this could be one potent reasoning. And that is why I said in my original post that it will be interesting to find out about that ancient civilisation that was able to think about so many advance concepts.

> Both these texts talk about aeroplanes, teleportations, rockets, test-tube baby, body preservation and medicines that heal serious battle injuries. And it is talked about in a matter-of-fact way, as if there is no novelty in these technologies. The frustrating part of these texts is the mixing of facts with fiction. So it becomes difficult to know what was really available back then. But the sheer thought that ancient humans atleast dreamt these advance ideas makes one wonder what type of civilisation was there back then?

If ancient civilization actually realized any of those technologies, I'm certain it would have left a significant archeological trace that would have been discovered by now. For instance: an actual airplane (as opposed to a glider) would need a significant industrial base for the engine and fuel that we'd probably see all kinds of evidence for. I don't think that's the kind of thing a solo inventor or even a city-state could manage independently.

There's the ancient atomic war theory:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/thedanispost/resea...

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4541

It couldn't have been atomic war, because traces would still be found of nuclear fallout, like how they look for steel from pre-ww2 shipwrecks now because they're not contaminated by trace radiation. But who knows? Maybe it was a vision of the future?

Depends on, how long ago those events happened and the amount of human activity in the area.

This is a well-known and popularized myth about the ancient scriptures which plays on patriotic feeling by claiming "uniqueness" and advancement in ancient India. It is manifestly not true or based in fact that any of these technologies existed at the time - there's simply too many holes (why didn't any other culture reproduce these fantastic feats or obtain access to these? where is the archaeological record? why did no other text from the time corroborate this story?), and the best "evidence" the scriptures even talk about this are generous translations that don't accord with the actual historical or linguistic data.

This sort of myth is yet another distortion of the past in favour of a narrative enshrining pre-modern India as superior that has taken ahold of my country. Only in India will people claim Valmiki's is the only valid version of the Ramayana (there are hundreds of versions of the Ramayana, some told as far as Thailand, of which Valmiki's is just one - see A. K. Ramanujam's "Three Hundred Ramayanas"); make homeopathy derived from Ayurveda a nationally accredited field of medicine despite overwhelming clinical evidence it is no better than a placebo; and claim the Vedas predicted the inventions we take for granted today. It is misplaced reverence untempered by an awareness of how to interpret historical documents, and all it serves is to blind people to facts and common sense.

Yeah it's unnerving because there are many great, real accomplishments from people in India, and no doubt many more to be found in the future. But dreaming about a special destiny inherited from the past doesn't necessarily require the dreamer to think about the here and now and what responsibility they may have to bring about the future we all desire.

It's dangerous because it simultaneously pacifies people towards the active role they should take in creating the world they will live in but also promises them they are the would-be inheritors of some mythical past, and that others are unlike them in that way.

As always we gotta work together and look towards the future, not the past. Basically, if you want to live in Star Trek, at least.

At the same time, one must remember these stories form a significant party of Indian culture. The telling of hari katha in order to inculcate good values, the recital of the Vedas, the teaching of the Upanishads, the chanting of the various stotrams all have great benefit. I make that statement from personal experience.

Many habits that have been passed down the generations have helped make us the society we are today.

As the next generation, it is our duty as a whole to preserve this for our descendants. For history one forgotten is tough to be retrieved. It would be a shame for one of the oldest cultures in the world to die out.

You can say the same thing about mythology from other cultures (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Chinese, Arthurian and hundreds more). Ultimately human imagination works the same way worldwide.

While we are at it, don't miss this reference to Bangalores[1] in Saving Private Ryan[2].

Interestingly enough, the unit in question, Madras Sappers[3] and MEG (Madras Engineers Group, I think) still exists in Bangalore when the city in question (Madras) itself has changed its name to Chennai ;-)

  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_torpedo
  [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlCItO2jEJw
  [3] https://goo.gl/maps/3EKcbYuNbJ9Ury7h9

Does anyone here know who developed this technology? A frequent complaint I have with Indian historiography is that the actual inventors and developers are forgotten, and kings get all the credit. All that my middle-school textbooks said was Tipu Sultan used them against the Brits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rockets

This was one of the first links in the article on Mysorean Rockets. In what way do you believe this answers my question?

According to this book[1] war rockets were used in India at least as early as the 14th century, and mughal emperor Akbar used metal-headed ones in the 16th. So it would seem neither rockets nor metal ones were invented by Tipu. However it doesn't answer your question of who did invent the war rocket :-)

1. The Mughal Empire at War: Babur, Akbar and the Indian Military Revolution, 1500-1605 (Asian States and Empires) https://www.amazon.in/dp/B01EX69NJ0/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_DMX...

Edit: added the link

But IIUC what you want to who under Tipu's rule invented (or revived) this rocket. You're probably right in thinking it wasn't Tipu himself who did this, since he was a king and not a scientist. But i suspect the real inventor's name is lost to history.

> IIUC what you want to who under Tipu's rule invented (or revived) this rocket.

Precisely. Tipu's subjects, but also subjects from other Indian kingdoms who invented and developed stuff.

>>All that my middle-school textbooks said was Tipu Sultan used them against the Brits.

The area that is now Karnataka, or erst while state of Mysore/Deccan has a rich culture of knowledge and art that has been pervasive regardless of the political entities that have ruled over them.

Its also understandable as that area has relatively more peace, stability and tolerance compared to other areas in the sub-continent, hence economic-knowledge prosperity follows from there.

Tipu like many before him was the beneficiary of a long going positive social inertia. No doubt he was good, but he had a lot going for him.

Even as of now. Karnataka has done relatively compared to bulk of India since Independence.

Tipu is respected by a lot of people, but the genocide of Coorgis who opposed him is well known history.

There are a lot of movements against historically whitewashing his rule.

Even a child with a Mobile phone today can read what they want to read. What's whitewashing in this world?

That's with anything today, not just history.

"Even a child with a Mobile phone today can read what they want to read."

And yet ignorance is just and high and snake oil salesmen have record profits

A child searching for 'hakken kreuz' on wikipedia would be quite confused, if only the child would actually read what the man who came up with it wrote about it in his book.

A lot of motivated misinformation exists even for the most studied symbol.

Let us not underestimate the deliberate whitewashing or brownwashing that happens in India.

There is no deliberate washing of anything happening anywhere.

Try reading a book, it works.

Try what the child above did, try searching for the word on wikipedia.

That isn't washing but victim blaming or blame transfer.

Here's what 'I' think; Gun powder technology got assimilated into Mongol Army through their conquests in Chinese mainland and there have been evidences that Mongols employed them for some primitive rocketry like spear projectiles powered by gun powder.

Mongols were ancestors of Mughals and it's plausible that they brought with them rocketry tech to India as there have evidences that rocketry was prevalent in Mughal empire even before Tipu Sultan's time.

In The Star-Spangled Banner, the “rocket’s red glare” refers to British Congreve rockets that were copies of Mysore’s rockets made when they captured the arsenals after defeating Tipu Sultan by treachery.

Tipu Sultan was a cruel ruler, and got soundly defeated by a superior, well supplied force despite Tipu having access to rockets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Mysore_Wars

What is this treachery you are talking about ?

The link you supplied makes no mention of Tipu Sultan being a cruel ruler. Even Tipu Sultan's own wiki page @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan does not contain the word 'cruel'.

Not sure how to read your comment but this is what I found.

Tipu like his contemporary Islamic rulers carried out frequent massacres of Hindus. Perhaps because it was too common among the islamic rulers that it is often not considered unique enough to Tipu.

There has also been plenty of whitewashingg of both Islamic & colonial-christian history under a "secular independent India". But social media is starting to open up alternative voices, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLMjUk9utaU&t=75s

Claims about Tipu Sultan's "cruelty" come primarily from English "scholars" who were actually fighting against him. It was a well-known policy of the British to portray their enemies as tyrants to gather legitimacy for their warmongering. Any such claims should be taken with a massive dollop of salt.

I'm surprised how many of these "alternative voices" reject western narratives about India but are all too happy to parrot colonial talking points about Muslims.

Islamic colonisation is real and no less cruel that the European one.

Indian muslims are still largely colonised and therefore the partition of India and the massacre of millions of Hindus even as recently as 1971 in Bangladesh.

It is indeed sad to see that Indian muslims today continue to associate themselves with the islamic conquerors who had raped, killed and/or forced their ancestors to convert.

The whitewashing of Islamic tyranny in India is so obvious that even children do not accept it as it is taught in schools.

Please provide valid and reliable references for the alleged massacre of millions of Hindu.

Before Islam arrived at Mysore it was ruled by Chola dynasty [1]. This Chola dynasty cruelly attacked, murdered and conquered their South East Asian neighbours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty

I think the parent's argument is more on the lines on whose politics he considers good and whose politics he considers evil.

This is just standard 'holier than thou' talk.

Every empire, nation or country ever established had to go through wars, that's just how it is. Because the existing political powers aren't exactly going welcome new political masters with roses and jasmine.

But when it's you waging wars it's for the good, when others do it, it's always evil of course.

You should read my comment carefully.

I am talking about the 3 million hindus killed in Bangladesh in 1971 by Islamists.

We have had a recent genocide of 300+ Hindus in Bangladesh as we speak during the recent durga pooja.

While even one unnatural death is one too many, calling every riot a "genocide" devalues the term. If 300+ is genocide, I really hope you spoke up loud and clear when Hindu rioters killed 2000+ Muslims in Gujarat when our current Prime Minister was that state's chief minister.

Also, Wiki says that the Bangladesh liberation war led to the deaths of between 2-3 million people including Hindus. Not sure from where you got that 3 million Hindus were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide

At this point, I feel you're just enjoying the attention you are getting on this comment thread by simply throwing around incendiary, fact free assertions.

300+ is Islamist in Bangladesh planned attack on Hindus is one sided.

Gujarat "riots" was started by a 300 strong Muslim mob that burnt alive 59 Hindu pilgrims. 20 muslim men including Maulanas were sentenced by the court for their premeditated crime. The Hindus too had a 2000+ casuality figure.

Clearly in both cases the perpetrators and the fault lies with radical Islamists.

Clearly underplaying the one sided attack on Hindus in the first case and blaming Hindus for the later, is both a symptom and the cause for radicalisation among the Muslims.

Pakistani army and Islamic radicals in Bangladesh targeted two groups Hindus and the Intelectual class.

In total there were an estimated 2-3 million killed and at least 400000 Hindu women raped or taken as sex slaves.

Clearly the number of intellectuals would be a rounding error so one can safely use the upper bound of 3 million, I do not know if the lower bound of 2 million would make it less of a crime.

Even if you refute this clearly a Hindu population that accounted upto 25 to 30 % of the Bangladeshi population that has now been reduced to 8% is clearly something to ponder over.

Two objections

1. The cholas did not force their language or culture or religion, these were already Hindu regions, with extensive trade with India. Some were allies and others rivals. This is simply not even comparable to colonization. They went to war over trade and reinstated the local heirs as kings.

2. The fact that you call the chollas cruel while you take offense to Islamic invaders who clearly destroyed 100s of thousands of temples and massacred millions of Hindus. This continues in modern times, in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Proves the point you are colonised.

Inspite of all the modern education the world still sees recruitment into Al queda, ISIS or Taliban. It takes a heart of stone to defend the Islamic tyrants of the past.

Sorry to hit your nerve by mentioning 'cruel' Chola dynasty that you're compelled to reply to my same comments twice. To be honest only 'cruel' dynasty that can attacked, killed and plundered their fellow Hindu kingdoms just to install their own puppets.

I'm not sure you really understand the meaning of "colonization" that you're frequently using and dissing it [1],[2]. The British is world renowned colonizer and they performed the classic form of colonization by utilizing "divide and conquer" technique over foreign lands. Using this technique the obedient local and native rulers are maintained but the disobedient will be killed or outcast, and replaced by the new obedient rulers. These colonized kings and rulers were under complete influent of the colonizer and generally called the puppets. This is exactly what the Chola dynasty did to their fellow South East Asian neighbours unlike the Mysore or the Mughal dynasty. There is no record that the latter perform any excursion to the South East Asian neighbours apart from the peaceful trade. Please bear in mind that all of them occupied the same land albeit at different times. The 'cruel' Chola dysnasty is the classic colonizer and perhaps the British learnt their colonization technique from Chola because their modus operandi are very similar.

I'm still waiting for your credible massacres and genocides references especially performed by Tipu Sultan.

[1]https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization

"This often involves the settlers dispossessing indigenous inhabitants, or instituting legal and other structures which systematically disadvantage them"

The Cholas did not do any of these. They only wanted to stop piracy and extortion which was making trade more risky. This was overall helpful to the economy of the whole region.

The Mughals imposed Jizya, imposed language, paid tributes to Afganistan. This was done as late as with Aurangazeb.

The Mopalla Hindu massacre was a continuation of Tipu's demographic change, forced conversion and raids on Hindus of the coorg in particular which went on for a period of more than 100 years by then.

Yes sure, they want to stop piracy and extortion to guarantee their trade activities. Exactly the same classic reasons given by the Dutch and British East India company to their respective government to intervene and colonize any strategic foreign land!

It seems you have cherry picked the definition that best suited your own skewed agenda. Please check the main definition from the dictionary (and also other parts of the Wikipedia), "a person who helps take control of an area or a country that is not their own, especially using force, and sends people from their own country to live there". Please check your history, Chola dynasty did sent their own people to these conquered foreign places and some of Chola descendents continued to rule several parts of South East Asian countries.

Mysore and Mughal dynasty are both from India subcontinent and according to some reputable historians that includes Afghanistan. Yes their ancestors are perhaps from somewhere else similar to Chola ruling class or upper caste who ancestors most probably from Aryan descendents originated from northern regions [1]. It just like saying now that cosmopolitan American including Irish, Chinese, Jewish, Scandinavian are all the US colonizer because their ancestors are from somewhere else eventhough they have lived there several generations for hundreds of years.

Genuinely asking you for a third time any reliable source of references regarding massacre done by Tipu Sultan, if not it's just hearsay and evil slander to systematically tarnish this Indian hero of independence, and shame on you.

[1]Tiruvalangadu Inscription States That Cholas Are Descendants of Aryan King Bharata:

https://www.indictales.com/2019/02/20/tiruvalangadu-inscript...

"India that is Bharat" is prominent in our constitution. The name Bharat comes from the name Bharata.

I do not see a reason why I need to justify why Cholas who are very much Indian with Indian roots being my hero. Whereas Mughals are foreign invaders with a fundamentalist Islamist agenda with no roots to the country or allegiance to the people are villains.

If you feel that other way, perhaps that is why Pakistan was created.

Pakistan 99% muslim

Bangladesh 25%-30% muslim (1951) -> 8% muslim (2011)

Kashmir 77% muslim (1991) -> 99% muslim (in a span of 1 month)

Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS ......... the list goes on and on, this is not something from the past it is a continuing problem. This has existed since the 7th century, and seems to only get worse.

You might be from a religion of the book and perhaps that is why you are living by definitions from a dictionary, I am not. The vast majority of the Tamil people who are today citizens of Malaysia went as bonded labourers during the British era.

Why do you hate the Cholas did they destroy your culture or people or make your ancestors into refugees.

I clearly hate the Mughals because they are destructive foreign invaders blinded by theological hate for non-believers especially idol worshipers, and this is a continuing problem within the country even after the partition.

https://youtu.be/5dn5vxpbEFk

> Islamic colonisation

How does anyone refute opinions? I'm going to try any way.

"Colonization" occurs when a species or group invades an area and makes it their home while retaining their own distinctiveness. An ant colony is a great example of this. The ants of an ant colony will, forever, be distinguishable from other insects and fauna near their colony.

If I were to point you to an Indian, would you be able to tell if they are descendants of Muslim colonizers? For what it's worth, the Mughals are an Indian dynasty with foreign roots. It's like saying that the Marwaris who settled in South India are colonizers. They keep their language and marwari culture alive while integrating with their south indian neighbors...much like the early Mughals!

> Indian muslims are still largely colonised

I don't know what this means. Are you arguing that their minds are colonized while they go about their day farting, pooping, ordering Swiggy, eyeing neighborhood cuties, and filling petrol in their cars? If so, what does colonization of the mind mean? Are they beholden to some foreign power? Which power? Who specifically in that foreign power structure do they listen to? Does the same argument apply to Indian Catholics who are presumably beholden to the Roman Catholic Pope?

> Indian muslims today continue to associate themselves with the islamic conquerors who had raped, killed and/or forced their ancestors to convert.

Do upper caste Hindus continue to venerate their ancestors who were the ones oppressing their caste inferiors? Honestly, beyond a couple of generations, one seldom knows what the heck our ancestors were up to. All we know is that tradition says to respect our ancestors and so we do it - hindus, muslims, christians, sikhs, atheists alike. No one wants to speak ill of the dead.

> even children do not accept it as it is taught in schools

I don't believe even one child in the history of the Indian education system has independently come to the conclusion that Islamic tyranny has been whitewashed without a degree of brainwashing from her parents/social milieu. If you can name one such child whose insights I can independently verify, I will eat my words. Btw, some Youtube influencers rants about Islamic whitewashing and blanket announcements that "even" children don't believe it are not acceptable to me.

By your logic British colonization of India will also not hold.

Indian Muslims are the ones who created Pakistan, they continue to have separate civil laws that allows a man upto 4 wives. And if you are not aware what is labeled "Hindu law" was originally framed as common law by the British but only applied on Hindus, as the others would not accept it.

Indian Muslims continue to name their children after mass murderers of Hindus, people like Timur or Aurangazeb who had slaughtered millions.

As a child, and as an Indian from the south, my history text books well filled with Islamic kings and "Islamic" monuments but very little about the chollas or Vijayanagara or Pandiyas and Pallavas.

Unlike in the north where almost all ancient temples have been destroyed or converted into mosques or appropriated like the qutib minhar. In the south we still have the grand temples standing and we are aware of how much destruction the islamist must have wrought on their people.

> By your logic British colonization of India will also not hold.

Ummm, I said colonizers hold themselves separate from the population they colonize. Britishers never found a home in India ergo, they were colonizers, the Mughals were not.

> as the others would not accept it

Say Indian polity were exactly the way it is today except India was a muslim majority country while Hindus were a 20% minority. Would a typical Hindu accept the assurances of a muslim majority and agree to a civil code which was geared towards appeasing the sentiments of the average muslim?

For every question you are asking, just flip the question on its head and ask yourself if you, as a hindu, would agree to the terms of that question?

I really want to know this - do you personally know just one Muslim man or a woman? Have you been to their house and eaten their food? Have you watched them try to land jobs and date and have kids and live a normal, ordinary life?

If you have done all these things and you still find them "foreign" to your concept of Indianess, I'm truly sorry for you.

First I am not talking about an average Indian muslim. I am talking about Indian muslims as a group. The same community which has been carrying out ethnic cleansing in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The British brought in the common civil laws that was relabelled Hindu laws, it was a set of laws influenced by Christian values and perhaps furthest away from Hindu values.

It doesn't answer the question if muslim men legally allowed to have upto 4 wives is a sign of fundamentalism in the society.

Mughals imposed Jizya on the Hindus for almost all of their 700 or so years of reign. They enforced Persian which resulted in the creation of Urudu, which is still the state language in Pakistan even though as a mother tongue it is minor.

Almost all the Mughals including Akbar carried out Jihad against the Hindu population in some case raiding and beheading entire cities. Sawing alive a Sikh guru, and boiling alive another in oil, as punishment for refusing to convert. Clearly they did not see themselves as Indians, nor did they treat Hindus as their subjects.

When you are in denial you are both colonized as well as engaged in whitewashing tyrants.

India has been under Islamic & Christian colonisation for the last 1000 years, where the locally evolved cultures has been trampled on.

Somehow you believe a handful of dominant castes did more harm than the colonial tyrants who massacred entire cities. The British in fact turned the richest nation to a poster child of poverty.

Caste is a word that does not exist in any of the Indian languages, the word and the system were both imported from Europe.

Let us pull the caste card to "brownwash" Islamic & Christian tyranny of the past that is pretty well established around the world.

From the first Amazon book I could find on India "Britain held back political progress in India for as long as possible – a policy which led to unimaginable chaos and suffering when independence was granted, and which created a legacy of hatred and distrust that continues to this day. "

Ever heard the saying "divde and conquer" its an Roman saying(?) but the British used this tactic often during their colonialism. Their oppression in the region goes much deeper, you can read up on it since there are many books.

The strength of a nation is decided by the weakest link, political weakness (and correctness) provided an opportunity to political forces backed by religious fanaticism.

This applies to both Islamic as well as Christian colonisation. It does not not make one necessarily better than the other when it comes to native people.

To those objecting to the later, a little bit of study will show that the doctrine of christian discovery was the primary driver and that the missionaries were not only the scouts but also enthusiastically took part in all forms of colonialism including the slave trade.

>>What is this treachery you are talking about ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purnaiah

The British simply bribed this guy onto their side.

He really was more like Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurice_de_Talleyrand-...

I wouldn't really call this treachery, In fact I wouldn't even call Jaichand a traitor or anything. The are often over simplistic narratives of deeply complicated situations.

> What is this treachery you are talking about ?

In the second battle of Seringapatnam, the British suborned Mir Sadiq, Tipu's chief vizier. He deliberately withdrew his troops from the section of the curtain wall the British breached.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Seringapatam_(1799)#T...

Mysoreans still remember to this day the Nizam of Hyderabad's craven assistance to the British, and you could argue that was another form of treachery.

"Copies" isn't quite correct. They were much improved.

Fun facts, the Mysorean rocket was the main reasons that Britsh was defeated several times in the battle against Kingdom of Mysore [1]. The leader of the British army at the time is none other than Arthur Wellesley, better known as 1st Duke of Wellington who later defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, and ended Napoleonic Era in Europe.

The British was so impressed by the technology, then decided to purposely created a new company to improve on the Mysore rocket technology to be used in war and created Royal Arsenal Woolwich in 1801 that later became Arsenal football club. The original name of Arsenal footbal club was Woolwich football club. Royal Arsenal were very successful that during WW1 it employed 80,000 workers. I think it's not an exxageration to say that Napolean was defeated by British partly due to Congereve rockets produced by the new company, that were improved from Mysorean rocket [2].

Another fun fact is that the Tipu Sultan of the Kingdom of Mysore also ruled Bangalore, now considered the Silicon of Valley of India.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congreve_rocket

[2]https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/congreve-rocket/

Thanks, I love this sort of thing. I'm always amazed how advanced we were throughout history, mostly with war.

War makes the rulers forget for one moment, the fragile system of controlled stagnation on the inside and allow those who would otherwise be condemned to rot in forgotten labs to shine for a second. War removes the anti-disruption brakes inherent to any power system.

Is that a quote, or something you came up with?

I love the fact that someone in the drawing just put a bayonet in a rocket. That's some taticool thing over there...

By attaching these blades to rockets they became very unstable towards the end of their flight causing the blades to spin around like flying scythes, cutting down soldiers in their path.

This is so cool. Never knew this !

Tipu Sultan was awesome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com