“In fact, Buddhism, which had flourished in Bharat for 1600 years, suddenly vanished almost completely as soon as Muslims became masters of Delhi and started raiding the plains of Ganga.” Citation needed?
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_the_Ind... - From 986 CE, the Turks started raiding northwest India from Afghanistan, plundering western India early in the eleventh century. Forced conversions to Islam were made, and Buddhist images smashed, due to the Islamic dislike of idolatry. Indeed in India, the Islamic term for an 'idol' became 'budd'. — Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism ... According to William Johnston, hundreds of Buddhist monasteries and shrines were destroyed, Buddhist texts were burnt by the armies, monks and nuns killed during the 12th and 13th centuries in the Gangetic plains region. The Islamic invasions plundered wealth and destroyed Buddhist images ... The decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent coincides with the spread of Islam in that part of the world, especially due to the Islamic invasions that occurred in the late 12th century. See sections "Turkic Invasions" and "Decline under Islamic Rule".
Buddhism was the tranquilizing death of India. You can argue that Islamic invaders would have conquered India anyways - but with Buddhism they rarely even had to fight!
Their puzzlement is even captured in several journals where they could range for hundreds of miles and loot/burn with little to no resistance. And do it once again a few years later!
There is a stronger argument to be made that it was because of the establishment of Buddhism as the de-facto state philosophy/religion/practice in North/Northwest part of India that the Islamic invaders could conquer India. Buddhism for all its intellectual/ethical/moral strengths was not a pragmatic religion. It ignored the realities of Life in favour of higher ideals in a context ill-suited to its survival and hence paid the price at the hands of barbaric muslim invaders. This happened through the elevation of Ahimsa into an all-encompassing tenet of state policy which severely sapped the Martial Spirit of the population and thus could offer no resistance to invaders bent on genocide. Prior to Buddhism (and Jainism) while Ahimsa was considered one of the central pillars of Hinduism its limitations in the practical world were acknowledged and Kings were expected to protect by force if necessary, those practicing Ahimsa as a way of life. With this gone, North/Northwest India was easy prey to barbaric muslim invaders who did not play by the same rules.
During their conquest of Sindh, the Arabs brought the non-Muslims into the category of ahl al-kitab, considering them ahl al-dhimmah (protected subjects) and thus practicing a certain amount of non-interference in their religious lives under the condition that they fulfil a number of obligations that came with this status. Since both Buddhism and Hinduism are literate religions with scriptures, the precedent of assimilating Zoroastrians into the category of ahl al-kitab was extended to them as well. The dhimmis were obligated to pay the jizya for following their ancestral religion. The historian Al-Baladhuri notes a decision by Muhammad bin Qasim in relation to a Buddhist vihara and Aror that after conquering the city through a treaty (sulh) he agreed not to kill the people and enter their temple, in addition to imposing kharaj on them.[29] The Buddhists had petitioned the Arabs for the right to restore one of their temples and it was granted by Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. However, this decision was later violated by the Pact of Umar and subsequent Muslim law codes which prohibited the restoration of existing non-Muslim religious structures as well as the building of new ones. Despite this fact, Buddhist inscriptions were still being recorded in the eleventh century.[28] Some Buddhists also fled and emigrated from Muslim-ruled areas into other regions. Unlike Brahmanical worship, Buddhism rapidly declined in Sindh after the eighth century and it virtually disappeared by the eleventh century.
You've broken the site guidelines repeatedly and badly in this thread. We have to ban accounts that do this, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
That means no personal attacks and no religious flamewar, among other things.
I don't doubt that you know a lot about this and other topics but we need you to make your substantive points thoughtfully and respectfully.
I understand your point (the letter) but disagree with its spirit.
One should not tolerate attempts to intentionally "sweep under the rug" documented genocides and distort History just because it involves someone's Religion (their in-group). It is easy to be blind to genocides if one is not forced to face up to them, admit their faults and change their ways. Else the vicious cycle keeps spinning to the detriment of Society as a whole. Hence my forceful attempt to show up a person who intentionally was downplaying documented genocides. Note that most of my data/articles are from wikipedia (curated database and hence less susceptible to fake news/specific narratives/gaming) and not some opinion piece to push a narrative.
As you are very well aware, there are insidious groups trying to game the system at HN (and elsewhere) to push their narratives. They are not interested in the Truth/Factual Data/Social Accountability etc. but are only interested in distorting reality to their benefit (see Orwell's essay on Nationalism). These people/groups need to be called out forcefully even if it means not obeying all rules of etiquette. It is in that spirit that i wrote my comments.
> there are insidious groups trying to game the system at HN (and elsewhere) to push their narratives.
This sort of perception is common and has been common on HN for well over a decade, but I've rarely seen any evidence to support it. What there is evidence for—plenty of it—is users with different backgrounds misperceiving each other's comments as astroturfing/shilling/etc. because they simply can't imagine anyone holding those other views in good faith.
The odds are high that this is what you're encountering. It's not some shady misinformation group; it's simply people with very different backgrounds than your own, who hold opposite views for legit reasons, just like you hold your own views for legit reasons. These are difficult historical topics that there's no consensus on.
Here are a couple of long explanations I posted about this in the past:
The Minority Rule, often associated with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, refers to a principle in which a small, intransigent minority can have a disproportionate impact on the behavior of a larger group, eventually leading the majority to adopt the preferences or practices of that minority. This occurs because the minority is highly committed to a particular preference or practice and is unwilling to compromise, while the majority is more flexible and willing to accommodate the minority's demands to avoid conflict or inconvenience.
Key Points of the Minority Rule:
Intransigence: The minority is unwavering in its position and refuses to accept alternatives.
Flexibility of the Majority: The majority is more flexible and often prefers to avoid confrontation or inconvenience, leading them to adopt the minority's preference.
Asymmetric Impact: Even though the minority is smaller, its rigid stance can lead to a situation where the majority conforms to the minority's preferences.
Examples:
Cultural Practices: In a mixed group, if a small number of individuals strictly follow a particular dietary rule (e.g., kosher or halal), the larger group might choose to accommodate these restrictions, leading to everyone adopting the more restrictive practice.
Regulations and Standards: Sometimes, a regulation or standard that applies to a small subset of people (e.g., accessibility requirements) becomes the norm for everyone because it’s easier or more efficient to have a single standard.
Implications:
The minority rule highlights how committed minorities can exert significant influence over larger groups, often shaping social norms, practices, and even laws. This can be both positive (e.g., ensuring certain ethical standards) and negative (e.g., stifling diversity of thought or practice).
Nice writeups. While most of your reasoning/logic are valid i think you are missing a few crucial viewpoints which should be incorporated into your "HN filtration and decision-making" process.
I presume you know of Nassim Taleb's "The Minority Rule", if not see his article The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority - https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... and video explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlW2aamDFc Any system can be gamed by an intransigent group by applying this rule under the guise of victimhood/false equivalence/even-handedness/appeal to authority/religion/PC/DEI/etc. Various language techniques like phrasing/tone/insinuation/instigation/support/oppose/etc. can be used to lead/sway/hint/push towards the group's viewpoint irrespective of Truth/Reality. In today's world all Human topics involve Politics/Propaganda/Manipulation/Spin/Gaslighting/etc. whether we like it or not. The effects of "events" (eg. HN comments) in these domains are non-linear (pareto/power law/etc.) and hence a single outlier can ruin everything i.e. you don't need an actual "shady misinformation group".
I am not sure how HN does its moderation but i can guarantee that the above is happening in one form or another. I have seen this in threads to do with Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Palestine issue, Boeing issues etc.
As an example, you say; "These are difficult historical topics that there's no consensus on." which is factually incorrect given the wikipedia links i had posted. You have been manipulated to disregard Truth in the guise of even-handedness :-)
You realize I belong to an Ahmedi family? What kind of insidious “ingroup” is that in Pak context? Please tell that to any Pakistani who will collapse in peals of laughter.
If you want to talk down to someone who was born and brought up as one that’s your prerogative but you’re the one who’s looking stupid. Yes, your spelling is the “official” one.
You can think what you want. I tend to worry about people telling me my parents should be assassinated rather than which vowel to use (this spelling issue obviously doesn’t arise in Urdu)
