Some facts about India

[San Su]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
But Britian wasn't all bad. The Brits did get rid of the Thugs. The Brits did bring British education to India which has given India a huge advantage in international economics. The Brits did bring down all the petty little rulers. Not to say that it was a bed of roses.

I would agree with you that British defeated all the petty kings and united India. But if you learn about Bengal famine, you wouldn't say they were not bad. The other european colonies are worst, Britons are worse. That is the difference.
check this link.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s19040.htm

In contrast, during the Second World War, a man-made catastrophe occurred within the British Empire that killed almost as many people as died in the Jewish Holocaust, but which has been effectively deleted from history, it is a 'forgotten holocaust'. The man-made famine in British-ruled Bengal in 1943-1944 ultimately took the lives of about 4-million people, about 90% of the total British Empire casualties of that conflict, and was accompanied by a multitude of horrors, not the least being massive civilian and military sexual abuse of starving women and young girls that compares unfavourable with the comfort women abuses of the Japanese Army.

Remember, when they entered India, India was one of the richest country. When they left, it was one of the poorest country. No one couldn't give appro. figure about how much wealth were stolen from India. Some put it as much as 3-5 trillions (in today's account). Somewhere I read that only 5% of the wealth generated from India is used to develop India (that too only where they see profit). I wouldn't blame them at all. If we are stupid enough to let an invader to rule the country, why should we blame the them...
[ June 03, 2003: Message edited by: Sankar Subbiah ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
they also made a mess by splitting it into 4 pieces when they left. (India, East Pakistan(now called Bangladesh), West Pakistan, Kashmir(now part of India))

and FYI, Barma and SriLanka were also part of India.

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
But Britian wasn't all bad. The Brits did get rid of the Thugs.

Yeah, right... they got rid of the thugs :roll: They are the biggest thugs and looters of the 19th and the 21st century. Where do you think they got all that wealth that they have? What did they produce? What is the amount of natural resources they have? Where did they get all the gold from?
Most of the wealth they have is looted from their colonies, mostly India and Africa.
All they had was an innate cunningness that made best use of the fools like us.

[Anonymous]

Thomas if the britishers were really that good people, america would not have kicked them out three centuries back, right? I am sure you understand that we had to tolerate much much more than what you had to from the same brits.

[Manav Mitra]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

and FYI, Barma and SriLanka were also part of India.

AFAIK, Sri Lanka has never been a part of India. It is very much an independant, autonomous nation.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Manav Mitra:

AFAIK, Sri Lanka has never been a part of India. It is very much an independant, autonomous nation.

I read soemwhere that in 1927 [I think, or in early 19s] british seperated Sri Lanka from India and than later Barma.
It was long back I read in a book or in article, even I dont remember that now.

[Jim Yingst]

What's Barma? Is it what we know as Burma, now Myanmar?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
What's Barma? Is it what we know as Burma, now Myanmar?

Yes.

[Pakka Desi]

Actually, I do not think it is correct to say that places such as Burma/Srilanka/Pakistan/Afghanistan were parts of India.
Before 1947, India (as in Indian Union) did not exist. The whole subcontinent was a british colony, which they called as India.
Before that, the subcontinent had many "kingdoms", none of which corresponds to present day India. The concept of "India" did not exist back then. In near past, even in mainland India, there were Marathas and the Mughals.
There have been references to the places all over the subcontinent (such as Gandhar/present day Kandhahar in Afghn) in Mahabharat but then also the whole subcontinent was not under one rule.
So I think, India is today what it has been since its inception i.e. since 1947. (Except of course some parts of Kashmir).
Religiously, of course, the entire subcontinent was Hindu, so Hindusthan probably comprises the whole subcontinent.

[Anonymous]

---------
From Pakka Desi:
Religiously, of course, the entire subcontinent was Hindu, so Hindusthan probably comprises the whole subcontinent.
---------
I agree on most of the other things you mentioned about Burma/Srilanka/Pakistan/Afghanistan not being part of India as a union formed after 1947. But i would prefer the term 'Bharat-varsh' instead of 'Hindustan' considering the current definition of 'hindu'.
From what i know, the whole sub-continent was owned by a king named Bharat and the whole land was known as Bharat-Varsh or Bharat-Khand (Khand==continent). Even today, the the adjective 'Indian' is translated as 'Bhartiya' or similar in most local languages including Hindi, Marathi, Malayalam, etc. In those days, a few thousand years back, most of the civilization developed near the place called 'sindhu valley' or 'sapt sindhu' mainly because there were seven rivers (sapt=seven) in that whole region which is now north and central part of india, mainly the state of Punjab. When the outsiders came (Central asian muslims, parsis from Iran, etc.) they called the people of sindhu valley as 'sindhus'. One of books of Parsis/Iranians pronounced 'sapt sindhu' as 'hapt hindu', in their language. The word 'hindu' which actually meant 'people of the sapt sindh valley, following a certain way of life and culture" was now used to differentiate between locals and the externals (mostly parsis and muslims) and the term 'hindu' was treated almost like a religion when compared to islam, etc.
As centuries passed, more and more muslims came to india, followed by christians, and today 'hindu' is considered as a religion as opposed to a person residing in near the 'sapt sindh' or the 'indus valley'.
During late 1940's when Brits were planning to leave, some people wanted to name the country as 'Hindustan' (land of hindus) as a match for 'Pakistan' (land of pure muslims, where pak==pure, i think). But thanks to the senses of our great leaders of that time, Sardar Patel and others, they kept the name as 'India' instead of 'Hindustan' because it is supposed to be a secular state as opposed to 'hindustan' which would mean a hindu state.
So I would say, Bharat-Khand or Bharat-Varsh probably comprises the whole subcontinent.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Actually, I do not think it is correct to say that places such as Burma/Srilanka/Pakistan/Afghanistan were parts of India.

You are very much correct.
Conception of India happend becuase of british rule.
In brit rule, Burma, Sri Lanka had same policy as India and were controlled from India by brits.
When I say controlled means if you pass ICS(Indian Civil Service, analogous to current IAS ) exam at that time then you could have been posted any-where in India and that India was consist of Barma and Sri Lanka.
But later they seperated it, reason God knows but they cited as ease of administration.
If you see any old pre-independenc era movie, you will see map of India consist of todays Pakistan + Bangla Desh + Barma

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by <Mumbai cha bhau>:

But i would prefer the term 'Bharat-varsh' instead of 'Hindustan' considering the current definition of 'hindu'.

I agree that Bharat would be a more politically correct name.

From what i know, the whole sub-continent was owned by a king named Bharat and the whole land was known as Bharat-Varsh or Bharat-Khand (Khand==continent).

Nobody really knows but the most we can go back is the Ramayana. The maps of that era are given here http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/maps.htm

Even today, the the adjective 'Indian' is translated as 'Bhartiya' or similar in most local languages including Hindi, Marathi, Malayalam, etc.

India is a very new "foriegn" term. It has to be mapped to some "nearmost" native term. So I am not disputing India == Bharat. But I am not really sure about what "bharat" meant and what were its boundaries. Both Ramayana and Mahabharat, has ample references to several dynasties in the Indian subcontinent. Do we have any document or historical evidence that refers to the area that Bharat ruled?

In those days, a few thousand years back, most of the civilization developed near the place called 'sindhu valley' or 'sapt sindhu' mainly because there were seven rivers (sapt=seven) in that whole region which is now north and central part of india, mainly the state of Punjab. When the outsiders came (Central asian muslims, parsis from Iran, etc.) they called the people of sindhu valley as 'sindhus'. One of books of Parsis/Iranians pronounced 'sapt sindhu' as 'hapt hindu', in their language. The word 'hindu' which actually meant 'people of the sapt sindh valley, following a certain way of life and culture" was now used to differentiate between locals and the externals (mostly parsis and muslims) and the term 'hindu' was treated almost like a religion when compared to islam, etc.
As centuries passed, more and more muslims came to india, followed by christians, and today 'hindu' is considered as a religion as opposed to a person residing in near the 'sapt sindh' or the 'indus valley'.

That's correct.

During late 1940's when Brits were planning to leave, some people wanted to name the country as 'Hindustan' (land of hindus) as a match for 'Pakistan' (land of pure muslims, where pak==pure, i think). But thanks to the senses of our great leaders of that time, Sardar Patel and others, they kept the name as 'India' instead of 'Hindustan' because it is supposed to be a secular state as opposed to 'hindustan' which would mean a hindu state.
So I would say, Bharat-Khand or Bharat-Varsh probably comprises the whole subcontinent.[/qb]

Actually, the word Hindusthan is not modeled after Pakistan. The reverse is true. Notice that I worte Hindusthan and not Hindustan (as most people write, which is wrong). Hindusthan == Hinduh + sthan(place).
So I don't think it's wrong to call it Hindusthan specially when Muslims got their own country.
But again, I agree that India is not just of Hindus anymore so Bharat is more apt.
But, India really seems foriegn to me. I don't know why they kept that name.
[ June 05, 2003: Message edited by: Pakka Desi ]

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

You are very much correct.
Conception of India happend becuase of british rule.
In brit rule, Burma, Sri Lanka had same policy as India and were controlled from India by brits.
When I say controlled means if you pass ICS(Indian Civil Service, analogous to current IAS ) exam at that time then you could have been posted any-where in India and that India was consist of Barma and Sri Lanka.
But later they seperated it, reason God knows but they cited as ease of administration.
If you see any old pre-independenc era movie, you will see map of India consist of todays Pakistan + Bangla Desh + Barma

The different regions of the subcontinent were ruled by differnt rulers at different times. So which ruler's region is modern day India? and why? In the past 2000 years ( 0 AD onwards)southern India was never under the ruler of the nothern India (except of course the British period).
So why should southern region be a part of India or why whould nothern region be a part of India?
If you consider british India as India then the whole subcontinent is India. But then Ramayan or Mahabharat did not mention Burma or the north eastern states.
That's why I said, India comprises what it was born with in 1947.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
But then Ramayan or Mahabharat did not mention Burma or the north eastern states.

Home work for you ..
How many wives Raja Dashrath had ?
And they were form where ?
And now those places are where in modern time?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
The different regions of the subcontinent were ruled by differnt rulers at different times. So which ruler's region is modern day India? and why?

I am talking abt early 19s brit region which was controlled form current India.
ANd culture wise alsi Burma was part of India.
If you read Shrat Chandra's novel [I read one and other I watched on TV as serial (Srikant)] both stories are set in early 19s. You will find how much transaction/communication was with Burma at that time.
Even in Srikanth, hero goes to work in Burma's jungle as Forest officer.
[ June 05, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[San Su]

Originally posted by <Mumbai cha
But thanks to the senses of our great leaders of that time, Sardar Patel and others, they kept the name as 'India' instead of 'Hindustan' because it is supposed to be a secular state as opposed to 'hindustan' which would mean a hindu state.

I always have hard time understand this logic. The one and only main pillar of our country is the Religion and the culture associated with it. That is the only uniting factor of our country. But why our politians and our people hesitate to accept the fact? People are afraid that saying it loud would make them intolerant or fanatic or extremist. By saying this, I am not saying India should be a Hindu only land. We strictly followed the secularist nature in our country. Did it stop the terriorist movements in our country (Kashmir(Muslim), Punjab(Sikh - I am not going to argue about whether it is really a subset of Hinduism or not))? Currently, India is loosly coupled. A small spark could totally disintegrate it. The soon we realize it, the better.
[ June 05, 2003: Message edited by: Sankar Subbiah ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:

[ June 05, 2003: Message edited by: Sankar Subbiah ]

will get back to you later
.. right now work

[San Su]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

will get back to you later
.. right now work

Good.. I will wait..

[San Su]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

will get back to you later
.. right now work

.. and I thought you are in Bangalore, the time there is 5:30am now.. work???

[sunitha reghu]

nocturnal

[San Su]

Originally posted by sunitha raghu:
nocturnal

vampire... [insert a "scary" Graemlin here]
[ June 05, 2003: Message edited by: Sankar Subbiah ]

[John Lee]

more indian fact:
indian is next to indian ocean.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by sunitha raghu:
nocturnal

Dracula

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Don Liu:
more indian fact:
indian is next to indian ocean.

there is only one ocean which is in the name of country

[John Lee]

but that was because india and pakistan did not break up then.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone please list down the first page of a history book?

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Notice that I worte Hindusthan and not Hindustan (as most people write, which is wrong). Hindusthan == Hinduh + sthan(place).

In what language is it "sthan"? I am curious, because former Soviet republics also use "stan" in their names:
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
etc.

[Manav Mitra]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

In what language is it "sthan"? I am curious, because former Soviet republics also use "stan" in their names:
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
etc.

That would be Sanskrit and hence many Indian languages, including Hindi.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by <Mumbai cha bhau>:

During late 1940's when Brits were planning to leave, some people wanted to name the country as 'Hindustan' (land of hindus) as a match for 'Pakistan' (land of pure muslims, where pak==pure, i think).

Salam Bajata Hoon Bhau,
Tumi Kasa Aahe?
I beg your pardon, but there is a small problem. Pakistan does not mean "land of pure muslims" but it means Pak + Sthan = Holy Place.
Pak => Pure/clean, is in a sense of Holyness not in the sense of purity.
And Hindustan word is coined by Muslims[its Urdu word. Sthan has origination from Sanskrit but stan is Urdu word. Can we say that Navigation is Sanskrit word ?? ] for which we feel so proud that we want to change the spelling of HindustHan.
It is as foolish as the demand of changing the name of Calcutta as KolKatta.
OR changing the name of Lucknow as LakhanPuri

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:

I always have hard time understand this logic. The one and only main pillar of our country is the Religion and the culture associated with it.

Yes very true.
Which Religion or culture we are talking about
Now serious. I think India's uniqueness is this that its does not have a single thing common but still its united.
How is it united? I think only God knows or I will say thanks to Pandit J L Nehru, to design curriculum such as where we are taught to respect all religion, live in harmony.
Now its in our blood and in our mind that no religion can be bad. All religion are same.
Hence we are united.
If we are talking abt Hindu religion. Then it itself so much diversed that I even see lot of diffrences between my maternal and paternal homes.
Some Hindu's burn and some burried after death.
Some Hindu's allow marriage between cousin and some not.
Some Hindu celeberate Holi and some not.
Some Hindu celeb Pongal and some not.
thousands of diffrences we have in among themselves.
So saying that make it Hindu Rastra for the sake of Unity... no way .. my concious does not allow me to approve. If Hindu Rastra then which Hindu Rastra Vaishnava or Shaiv Hindu Rashtra ??
Nirakar Brmha or TriMukhi Bramha Hindu Rashtra ??

.
.
.
list is endless..
I like the way we are now. Tighty bound and losely coupled.

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
I always have hard time understand this logic. The one and only main pillar of our country is the Religion and the culture associated with it.

Continuing in the same vein of ravish a good book to read for anyone not conversant or atleast wanting to know about india will be
Discovery Of India
- Jawaharlal Nehru.
various topics like the advent of idolatory, casteism, ancient relations between india -china- greece have been handled in a very informative way.
after reading the book one gets a feeling that one of the unifying factors for india as a whole has been its diversity and respect for difference as a whole.
It may seem a contradiction when we say the differences act as a unifying factor but when u go to the roots of indian history we have always been a cruicible for different thoughts and ways of life which have gradually assimilated themselves into the mainstream of india at the same time contributing in both a positive and negative way to the development of the country.
so when we say to impose something on our country we are goin against a way of life something which dates back to the very roots of Indianism and which will eventually be rejected by the majority of the ppl in here.
I dont think a country which gave birth to budhism,jainism,sikhism and where islam (we currently have the second largest population of ppl following islam in the world) and christanity have roots and are thriving will ever accept something being pushed down her throat.

[San Su]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I think India's uniqueness is this that its does not have a single thing common but still its united.

It is not uniqueness.. It is weakness. It was exploited by the invaders for 1000 years. That is what I am trying to point out here.

Now its in our blood and in our mind that no religion can be bad. All religion are same.
Hence we are united.

Only Hindus think in that way (and may be Sikhs). I am not sure about Chiristians but def. not the Muslims.

If we are talking abt Hindu religion. Then it itself so much diversed that I even see lot of diffrences between my maternal and paternal homes.

The core or base or principle is same.

So saying that make it Hindu Rastra for the sake of Unity... no way .. my concious does not allow me to approve. If Hindu Rastra then which Hindu Rastra Vaishnava or Shaiv Hindu Rashtra ??
Nirakar Brmha or TriMukhi Bramha Hindu Rashtra ??

Here what you are talking about it subsect of the Hindu religion. And BTW, who is preaching to force something? All I asked was why don't we accept the fact that India is (artificially) united because of the religion. Let me remind you what was the foundation when the country was divided in 1947.
Muslim majority - Pakistan
Hindu majority - India
Whether you agree with it or not, that is the fact.

[San Su]

Originally posted by Devesh H Rao:
Continuing in the same vein of ravish a good book to read for anyone not conversant or atleast wanting to know about india will be
Discovery Of India
- Jawaharlal Nehru.
various topics like the advent of idolatory, casteism, ancient relations between india -china- greece have been handled in a very informative way.

Panditji talked about "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai". You know what followed... :roll:

after reading the book one gets a feeling that one of the unifying factors for india as a whole has been its diversity and respect for difference as a whole.

Yea, I heard the word "Unity in diversity". It is one of the beautyful word discovered by the human kind. But in India, it is beautyful only in textbook. Actual incidents speaks otherwise. Country was divided along the religious line, Hindus are getting killed just because they are Hindus. Hindus living as refuges even in they own "Hindu majority" land just because they are Hindus and no one cares about them. If everyone believes in this word, I would be the happiest person. But..

It may seem a contradiction when we say the differences act as a unifying factor but when u go to the roots of indian history we have always been a cruicible for different thoughts and ways of life which have gradually assimilated themselves into the mainstream of india at the same time contributing in both a positive and negative way to the development of the country.
so when we say to impose something on our country we are goin against a way of life something which dates back to the very roots of Indianism and which will eventually be rejected by the majority of the ppl in here.

Who are "we" here? Hindus? I agree with you that it is in our blood that even though we were killed in millions by the islamic barbarian invaders and we were suppressed by them for 600-700 years , we still respect their value and their way life.

[Sameer Jamal]

Only Hindus think in that way (and may be Sikhs). I am not sure about Chiristians but def. not the Muslims.
Muslim majority - Pakistan
Hindu majority - India

What ever you say does not matter fact is that I as a muslim never had any muslim friend and me and my friends never beleive that we (Hindus and Muslim are seperate) We have to live in unity and make this country developed few people like you (either hindu or muslim ) cannot apart us

[Sameer Jamal]

Who are "we" here? Hindus? I agree with you that it is in our blood that even though we were killed in millions by the islamic barbarian invaders and we were suppressed by them for 600-700 years , we still respect their value and their way life.

I thought this type of beleif is among uneducated mass but nice to see some learned one also.

[San Su]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:

I thought this type of beleif is among uneducated mass but nice to see some learned one also.

Uneducated masses? Dude, did you learn History in your school? If not, let me know. I can teach you some..

[San Su]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:

What ever you say does not matter fact is that I as a muslim never had any muslim friend and me and my friends never beleive that we (Hindus and Muslim are seperate) We have to live in unity and make this country developed few people like you (either hindu or muslim ) cannot apart us

Who said that we don't like the unity. Talk to your fellow religionist in Pakistan and Bangladesh. What part in my message made you think I am seperating you from rest of <whoever it is>?? :roll:

[Anonymous]

It seems that Sankar Subbiah is an silly victim of sangh parivar's(united force) brainwashing techniques.a country like india,having a lot of population and poverty,communal isolation will never make any sense.india cannot make any progress or growth by these communal isolation and brainwashing techniques for power.
Educated people in india should defenitely oppose sangh parivar activities.they are pulling india 1000000 years backwards by injecting communal toxins into innocent peoples minds.
Killing muslims and christiens will not make nothing good for india.even though they are minority,they are very large in number.so killing them will only make india burn.kill all minority and gain power for hindu's is not practical.
Sangh parivar is giving their all for brainwashing uneducated youth and using them for killing minorities and making troubles and utilising that troubles for power.they got power only by communal riots.all good indians should oppose them for a good future.

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

How many wives Raja Dashrath had ?
And they were form where ?
And now those places are where in modern time?

You tell me. None of them was from Burma. Check out the maps that I mentioned in my previous post.

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

I am talking abt early 19s brit region which was controlled form current India.
ANd culture wise alsi Burma was part of India.
If you read Shrat Chandra's novel [I read one and other I watched on TV as serial (Srikant)] both stories are set in early 19s. You will find how much transaction/communication was with Burma at that time.

British colony India was a large colony. And it did include all the regions that you are talking about. And 1000 years ago all of these regions probably had the same culture. However, how many of them have the same culture now?
Just because these regions had same culture 1000 years ago, you can't form one nation out of them today. It will not work.
British did not club them together because thought is was the same country. They just clubbed everything together (and called it India) because of the administrative reasons. So there is absolutely no pointing in thinking that today's country India should include all those regions.
Regarding the novel, I don't think it proves anything really. There were people going from India to UK also during that time. And to SA, British Guyana etc. Should they also be part of India???

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

And Hindustan word is coined by Muslims[its Urdu word. Sthan has origination from Sanskrit but stan is Urdu word.

I don't think so. Different languages may have a similar sounding word of the same thing. If former soviet contries have 'stan' in their names that does not mean it necessarily came from "sthan" or the reverse. Does stan in those languages also means 'place'? I don't know. Map??
Also, Ravish, Where do you think Urdu came from?

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Can we say that Navigation is Sanskrit word ?? ] for which we feel so proud that we want to change the spelling of HindustHan.
It is as foolish as the demand of changing the name of Calcutta as KolKatta.
OR changing the name of Lucknow as LakhanPuri

I think you are talking about entirely different thing. It could be a matter of another thread. However, if you have learnt Hindi grammer in school, you can do a 'sandhi-vichhed' of Hindusthan and see that it is Hinduh + sthan.
In any case, there is no point in discuss over that since that is no the official name of the country. Although I would prefer it to India. The word "India" really does not mean anything to me. What does it mean to you, I am curious.

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:

What ever you say does not matter fact is that I as a muslim never had any muslim friend and me and my friends never beleive that we (Hindus and Muslim are seperate) We have to live in unity and make this country developed few people like you (either hindu or muslim ) cannot apart us

You are right. Hindus, Muslims and Christians of India are not separate. But if I am not mistaken don't muslims have a concept of Ummah, in which they believe that all muslims of the world belong to one country?
There are many problems with Hindu/Muslim/Christian unity. I think the main problem is this: (BTW, this is my theory and I could be wrong.)
For past 700 years, Indians (which were mostly Hindus, Buddhists, Jains) were constantly under attack from Islamic forces and then Christian forces. And both these people forced their religion upon the locals. Now, since the ruling class was of a different religion than the local population, obviously, the local religion was treated inferior and the foriegn religion was treated superior. So slowly the converts started feeling superior than the non-converts. Now, the aggressors gone, the ruling class's religion is same as the local population's religion. This is perceived as trouble for the people of foreign religion since they do not identify themselves with the locals anymore. And I think this is where the friction is coming from.
I find a verification of this theory in the behaviour of Imams and Popes of India. They have their own line. They still take their directions from outside leaders who have nothing in common with us. And they have no respect for the local culture. They despise local religion to propogate their own.
Another big problem is the inherent aggresiveness and intolerance of these religions. You can see from the Islamic and Christain countries that they wiped out all existance of their existing religions by force. Look what happened to Buddhism in Afghanistan and Zorastrians (which also in fact a native religion) in Iran. And it was very much happening in India. Look what happened in Goa.
So the point is, there is a complete mismatch of philosophies of Hindu/Buddhism/Jain/Sikh (in one camp) and Islam/Christianity (in another camp). No wonder there are clashes. And no wonder there are clashes between Islam and Christainity. Even though both the religions (Islam and Christianity) talk about peace/respect for other religion etc., do they really practice it? I don't think so.