Are Modern Turks Related To India's Turkic Invaders? |
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 07. 2021
- Are Modern Turks Descendants of India's Turkic Invaders?
Watch full episode: • #AskAbhijit 12: World ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
►UPI (G-Pay/PhonePe/Paytm): abhijitchavda@icici
►PayPal: paypal.me/AbhijitChavda
►Become A Member on CZcams: / @abhijitchavda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOIN #AbhijitChavda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
★Twitter: / abhijitchavda
★Instagram: / theabhijitchavda
★Facebook: / theabhijitchavda
★Website:
★Email Inquiries: inquiries.chavda@gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
#AbhijitChavdaPodcast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
★Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/1WmKYRI...
★Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
★Google Podcasts: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
★Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/show/the-abh...
★Amazon Music: music.amazon.in/podcasts/c879...
★Soundcloud: / abhijitchavda
★Audible: www.audible.com/pd/item_name-...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
#AskAbhijitChavda #Abhijit #Chavda #AskAbhijitShow
Thank you for watching!
Please share the video and spread the message. 🙏
Yup. How refreshing to hear this broken down and yet simply explained. You make unbearable realities, (I speak as a woman of Armenian background), bearable and quantifiable. And I can explain this overview to my daughter, who's father is Indian, so she understands how the Turkic invasions have affected different parts of her heritage. I am fortunate that most of my Armenian family was from Russia and Iran and able to survive the Armenian genocide. But there is a story of one ancesteress who fed her infant son hashish and packed him in a saddlebag and rode over the border at night during a time the Turks were killing all male Armenians including babies and children. My parents raised my sister and I to view ourselves as global citizens. I may be wary of Turkish people, but I believe that connecting as humans is an important decision to promote peace and progress in the evolution of humanity, and I have had warm friendly relationships with Turkish people in both my professional and personal life. Their denial of the Armenian geniocide is no different that here in the US where the brutal, inhuman enslavement of Africans and subsequent African Americans is glossed over, not truly acknowledged and without reparations. Having been fed propaganda my whole life, your honest, evidence based observations and explanations have awakened my curiosity and allow me to finally put the world together in a way that makes sense. Much gratitude to you,
You are most welcome, Lucille. 🙏
@@AbhijitChavda sir pin this comment
Ma'am, I'm Indian and I personally have inferred that Armenians are long lost Cultural cousins of the Subcontinent. There's some significant connection in the past. Hope we all get to know our history of the world a lot better with advanced technology.
@@AbhijitChavda Wait aren't mughals .......Monghols?? mongols? All spoke turkish and have association with turkey because of the caliphate.
@@nyetmatchbox9852 they are romanis aka gypsies
Armenians are different people of causcus
Babür was a Turk. Tang who ruled China was a Turk. Cengiz (Ghenkis) was Mongolian but his fighters were predominantly comprised of Turkish clans.
A lot of people think Cengiz Khan had only mongol army 😂
They think at the time mongol could capture such a large area without Turks.
Some estimate say at least 50% army was Turkic.
There were situations where 80% of mongol army was compiled of Turkic nomads from Central Asia
@@user-wp7kg6qw1g The more I look at the random uneducated comments here the more it becomes clear it is just a billboard for a Lucille, who says she is Armnian, to pass comments on Turkish people as Abjit pinned her comments to the top as if to say Lucille is the authority on the topic of the origin of Turks.
Cengiz is half turk from his mom side
All muslims dad was chengis khan, his only motto was to destroy islam know him before you making up your own history.
Babur came from Farghana valley in Uzbekistan. He's Karluk turk from fathers' side and Mongol from mothers'. Thus the name
The Mughals considered themselves Turkic. As per their biographies, India was just another country they were conquering in the name of Islam ( ref. Akbarnama). I am not sure why our textbooks thrust our nationalism on to them.
In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat
and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp
and he was born in Anatolia .
Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,
Mughal is a persian word for Mongol. Mughal ruler Babur was a descendant of Tamerlane. Tamerlane came from Baralas tribe from Borjigin branch of Mongols. Yet Baralas are considered as Turkified Mongols
They did not use the term Mughal themselves. "Mughal" or Mongolian was a term used by their adversaries; Persians and the English.
@@zzhex6780 Malik Timur was from the Baralas Tribe from Borjigin branch who came to Central Asia during Mongol Invasion. Whether Turks or Mongols, both have same origin: Xiongnu/Buyuk Hun Khaganate.
@@zzhex6780 Baralas are Turkified Mongols or Turks are Persianised Mongols.
Who invented caste system and who replaced varna system with caste system in India? Basically every religious texts have mention of Varnashram but theres no mention of "Caste" anywhere.
It eventually become reality... As people became uneducated...
The truth is the we misunderstood the varna system,they are based on work done by people like kshatriyas being politicians,brahmins being teachers,vaishyas being businessmen etc but we made it superiority complex
It happened because of Brahmins who accepted British translation
@@spaceexplorer5481 there you go... Glorifying the casteism in attempt of denying it.
Caste system is basically not caste system in that time it was a kind of division of labour, means no one is brahmin, kshatriya or vaishya by birth but by their work. But as time passes it becomes complicated when people started to recognise their groups or caste by their birth.
#AskAbhijit How Bhakti movement saved India and it's heritage from Islamist and Britishers?
Yes..good question.
#AskAbhijit
@@avid459 Bhakti movement was although was more of non scientific but it kept our culture alive during those harsh times. It kept the people of our bharat United for long and it still keeps us united.
@@krishnakumar-xh1cf _Bhakti_ is something that runs through the fabric of this country and binds it together. That's true. But, what is being referred to as the *Bhakti Movement,* did immeasurable damage than saving our heritage.
For instance, the science of *temple making* and *deity creation* are almost lost. After all, to someone steeped in _bhakti,_ the details did not matter. Even though it maybe a great device to realise the ultimate, it has not been a benediction as a collective movement because it led to the neglect of the intricacies of the cultural behaviours/rituals and so on.
_I feel it is akin to saying that Mahatma Gandhi's non-violence movement led to India's independence._
@@RKB192000 True... The movement created differences between Vaishnavas and Shaivas and destroyed Tantric form of worship which was the science behind the the Aagamas and the mechanism of worship.. People started to condemn tantra and yantra due to which our Dharma and it's knowledge went backwards rather than moving and taking us forward.
@@avid459 Why do you need "convert" anyone from Bauddh to "Hindu"? There are just different traditions with same goal of raising human consciousness , it is not a fight like Abrahamic religions. Adi Shankaracharya didn't "converted" anyone. Conversion is western idea.
Turks first invaded Anatolia(modern day Turkey) on 1071 AD led by Seljuk Dynasty ruler Muhammad Cagri aka Sultan Alp Arslan. Seljuks named after Seljuk Bey, a nomadic Turk from Kinik tribe of Oghuz branch of Turks.
Sultan Alp Arslan established Seljuk Sultanate of Rum which later turned into Ottoman Empire in 1299 AD and Modern Republic of Turkey on 1924 AD.
The permanent settlement by Turks in Anatolia starts with the Seljuks. However Turks had lived in Anatolia for thousands of years before that as nomads.
@@aba6737 Turks were nowhere close to Anatolia before that. They were originally from Central Asia which is very far from Anatolia.
@@Adalar_Denizi Turks are mixed but all other races are pureblooded.
Yeah, ıt must be a Greek fairy tale...
@@Adalar_Denizi Nobody has Hellenic DNA in Turkey
@@Adalar_Denizi Analtolyan
Very well explained. Greetings from Uzbekistan)))
Oz bo’lsada biz turklarga adovati bor kabi eshitiladi. Bir - ikki suxbatlarini tingladim va shu fikrga keldim. Balkim uzr istar ota bobolarimiz amallari uchun.
@@user-wp7kg6qw1g Why Apologize , back in the day everyone was a Barbarian
no. not very well explained. turks and mongols are not related. altaic theory is not accepted by modern philology.
In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat
and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp
and he was born in Anatolia .
Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,
@@freethinker9630 before turks establish Ottoman. There was a seljuq. Seljuqs was originally from Khoraezm. Khorezm is central asia.
Alp Arslan was born in Khorezm too.
Can we say that present day Muslims living in india are descendents of turks and surprisingly here in telugu states we call muslims as "turkollu"
@@sahilsagwekar u mean conversion
No, absolutely not they modern day mislims living in india are Indians. Even during mughal era majority muslims are indian not mughal or turks
@@charlavenkat1112 yes.
During vijayanagara empire the king hired some of Central Asian Turks to train his army and the term turakollu was coined during that period both kannadigas and telugus call muslims as turakollu and even after 500 years of assimilation the features of muslims in Deccan region and Karnataka and Andhra some what resembles central Asians
@Amimul Islam yes man I researched about them little bit and I got known that they conqured almost 50 nations in 13th century with the help of gun powder
Talk about raja Prarapaditya, raja kedar ray, raja rudra narayan, rani bhavashankari, Bir hambir Malla, chilla rai who were contemporary of akbar please. Why did not these Bengali powers unite? #AskAbhijit
Nahi nahi hum to inki hi ibadat krenge
Shitty "Distorians"
@@abhinavghosh Ki bolchen dada?
@@sidharthadey5781 Sir,ask this question in the comment section of community post for the coming AskAbhijit session of history,society, geopolitics.
Silarai was a Koch Assamese not bengali lol learn history 🗿
Mughals were descendants of mongols and turkic people. Alp arsalan not suleman shah who entered anatolia. Alp arsalan defeated the eastern roman empire in the battle of manizert. Saljuks were later replaced by the descendants of suleiman shah. Mehmet was the guy who fulfilled the dream of conquering constantine now known as ISTANBIUL he ended Byzantine empire in the year 1453. Mughals proudly say themselves as Chagatai ( successors of mongols & turks).
they are turtik from paternal side, they did not claimed their Mongol heritage which was maternal
Mr Abijit Chavda is not neutral he seems baised and even his many historical references are not correct as you identified this one so we can't say he is historian
@@l...6954 even i feel the same way, he is not neutral in his views, it's more biased towards his people and people of his ethnicity. There are many references to point out but i can't say its same with his every video but yes most of his video are unbiased and not that correct.
Chagatai is the old Uzbek language & nation. They were Karluk Turks
@@manumudgal4988 babur claimed that he was descendents of changiz khan and taimarlane
Dear Abhijit you should have know that the Turks are much longer in Anatolia then you mention, the oficially as early as 1071 since the battle of manzikert the seljchuk empire against the east roman empire, but historically the turks have even before 1071 in anatolia
In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat
and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp
and he was born in Anatolia .
Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,
we will take vengeance once the hindu empire rises
@@Simply1ME 😂😇
@@sinanergin694 laugh while the pot of sins of your ancestors are filled, karma is comming back for you
@@Simply1ME look who's talking about karma, i didnt say anything wrong you talk about rising of the hindus and that they will take revenge, youre obviously filled with hate for no good reason and thats worth a hard laugh
Hi from Turkey. Actually I didn't expect such a good explanation, respect. Let me add something, Turks left Central Asia and migrated to different locations:
-One route was to the India, they established Delhi Sultanate and Babur Empire.
-Other route was north of Black Sea, they established some Bulgar and Tatar states and they Turkified the Golden Horde.
-Other one to the Egypt where they established Mamluk Empire.
-Other one to the Iran where they established Seljuk, Safavid, Afsharid Empires. Today you know them as Azerbaijani Turks.
-And also to the Anatolia where they conquered the Roman Empire and established the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey.
Ottoman Empire was a melting point of Turks, Europeans, Caucasians and also Middle Eastern people. That's why modern Turks resemble both European and Eastern features.
Turkish Presidency Seal includes 16 stars which represent 16 Great Turkic Empire, one of them is Mughals, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Great_Turkic_Empires
Emre it's a good idea to avoid the use Mughal when describing Babür. It is a term erroneously used by Persians and later the English.
Contact I am trying to learn about nomad Turks and how Arabs easily defeated and converted whole Turkish tribe to islam yet Mongol didn't even 10% muslim , how Turk lost so easily when they are alike
@@SunitaDevi-jc1kv First you need clarify which tribe you mean. Turks have many clans over a very large geographic area.
As far as I know Persian cultural influence led to Turks converting to Islam. The word in Turkish for sin is a Persian loan word - not Arabic.
@@SunitaDevi-jc1kv Turks accepted Islam. They were not fully conquered like Persia, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. After collapse of Gokturks, Turks were spread, they were weakened. Chinese kingdom was controlling Uyghurs and even tried to capture Tashkent, Bukhara Samarkand. But Abbaside came and fought with them. So during Battle day Turks chose sides with Arabs and defeated chinese. Read Battle of Talas 751. At that time Abbasid army had many Turkic warriors and generals. So abbasid were giving a lot of preference to Turkic horseman. It made them accept Islam slowly but steadily. After century Seljuqs came out. They also accepted Islam. After that many nomadic Turks came to central asia they islamized really fast.
@@user-wp7kg6qw1g thanks for information I will look into this
A note to point out:-
Suleiman shah and the post mongol turks in Anatolia weren't the first Turks to enter and emigrate into the this region but were the Seljuks after the #Battle_of_Manzakirt.
Thanks
kuch bhi kayi godugdo alp grandfather of suleman and he is born in Sougut (turkey )
1 mistake you made is that the Turkish 🇹🇷 didn’t run away from Mongols rather they immigrated to Anatolia about couple centuries prior to Mongol invasion. Mughals (Boburids) were Karluk Turks. Karluk Turks are now Uzbeks, Uyghurs, Hazara. These are the Mughals that invaded India. None of them were mongols except the leaders who was the descendant of the mongols but they were turkified & considered themselves Turks. Uzbeks were original Timurids, but when Shaybani khan invaded; he gave the timurid citizens the name Uzbek. Shaybani khan was Kipchak while the timurids were Karluks. In modern times, Uzbeks are still majority Karluks.
Read the destruction of The Baghdad Caliphate by the Mongols. That was the beginning of pushing the Turks out.
Damn there's atleast a lie or half information in every line how you composed it
That doesn't make sense so they just skip persia ? Whoc literally between them and central Asia.
@goldenstate2002 oh.
No thats a misconception. Turks conquered anatolia century prior to mongol invasion thats true but the mass migration to the anatolia happened during the mongol invasion, most of it is well documented, which tribe settled which area and when etc. Kipchak tribes were mostly joined the mongol army, karluks were busy invading india themselves and we (oghuz) were roaming around and raiding iranian lands when mongols showed up and did run away from them after mongols beat khwarazmids.
Yes, in Bangladesh there was also Turkic people who conquered and settled especially in Sylhet region. Turks assimilated with the Bengali people over time.
@@descendedofrigvedicclans2216 I meant for our people.
@@orionemperor5319 কাইল্লা বাংলাদেশী turks 🤣শালা কাইল্লা ন্যাংটাদেশির তুর্কি সাজার খুব ইচ্ছা 🤣🤣
@@descendedofrigvedicclans2216 nope there are some in Kerala and Sri Lanka
Duplicate indian
Basically made you Bengalis their slaves. And Islam is their tool
#AskAbhijit
Sir what is the mesopotamian civilization and culture which existed during 6000 bc
Zahiriddin Muhammad Bobur founder of the Baburid dynasty (Mughal Empire) descendant of the great Emir Temur originally from Andijan modern Uzbekistan
Sir I wanted to ask about china's influence on African union and Latin America and future of African union in the next 10 15 years? will africa come out of the colonial-slavery era mindset? #AskAbhijit
Can you please discuss on attoman dynasty. Recent tv series has glorified them so much. I want to know the truth.
They glorified their own ancestors, no offence
This is not any different to any major power in the world glorifying their past in the movies they export to every corner of the world.
Watch Battle of Haifa. .
Thank you for such a Great Clarification 👍🏼✌🏼🙏🏻🕉️ Pranaam 🙏🏻🕉️Abhijeet Chawda ji 🕉️🕉️🙏🏻Jai Sanatan Dharm 🕉️🙏🏻🕉️kahi se bhee turk aaye ho kuch ki chehra alag hai to bhee hain to degraded Islamists hee Turkik hee mamluks hee 👍🏼👍🏼🔥
Ram Ram JI
Excellent vblog, well researched and informative. Compliments.
In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat
and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp
and he was born in Anatolia .
Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,
turks and mongols are not related. altaic theory is not accepted by modern philology. completely different peoples.
Turks and mongol are Related.. They both practiced the tengrism
@@gamingwithroy1435 indonesians practiced hinduism until arrival of islam. but they are not indians not even related.
Turks and Mongols created alliances against common enemies. They borrowed vocabulary from each other and there was limited inter cultural marriage. But they speak different languages.
@@aba6737 common enemies? turks and mongols were almost enemies. khwarezmids, seljuks, delhi sultanate. volgs bolgars even non-muslim cuman-kipchaks all of them were enemies of mongols.
but some time later mongols turkified began speaking turkic. like mughals in india or golden horde or timur.
@@BenDover-ud7vs In the history of no nation the enemy is a constant.
I am Turkish and I fully agree with your video👏👏 thx for giving a true historical informations🙋♀️🇹🇷
Basically you guys are greeks the great greeks that gave world stoicism
Sir what would you say about the northmen . Ragnar loth brok . The great heathen army , and what happened was to them afterwards
#askabhijit why india has so many christian schools?
British empire and during nehruian era nehru invited many Christian missionaries to india
@@50subscriberswithoutavedie57 sin😅??didn't got your answer.
It is called cultural imperialism.
Because of Rice bag 🍚😂.. who ever converted to Christianity get a bag of Rice.. 😂😂😂😂
Guys you know that Emir Timur said that we are the king of Turan, we are the chief of Turkistan, we are the chief of the Turk, the highest of the nations.
So Babürlüler ( englis mughal ) , Babursah is grandchild of the Amir Timur
Yea Chief of the Mongols Empire And also Cockroaches 🪳🪳🪳
@@Amir-rv9ov cry browny
The video made a mistake because the Turks entered Anatolia 11th century and not because they escaped Mongols . The oguz Turkic tribes lived other side of the Caspian Sea in modern day Uzbekistan and and invaded Anatolia with the Seljuks who came more than 100 years before the rise of the Mongols
Sir, it would be better if you mention the sources of the information, just so that we can know more deeply.
Now that is a real worthy comment and one will be ignored.
#AskAbhijit sir can you tell us about the African rulers that ruled in indian subcontinent.
I know it's very controversial but can you talk role of raja man Singh in saving nd building temples from Vrindavan Mathura nd Jammu to puri (when he defeated the Afghans as a Mughal commander who were occupying Odisha nd vandalizing jagganath ji)
#askabhijit can you tell about the history of Bhumihars... ?
@#AskAbhijit sir , the islamisation of persia was a cultural shift or a there was a change in gene pool ? the parsee zoroastranians that reside in India , and the iranians who reside now in the islamic republic of Iran , they are of different faiths surely , but in terms of racial make up are parsi zoroastranians and iranic shias (be it persian , lur ,gilakis , kurds , etc.) are they of the same origin and and race ???
#AskAbhijit can you please explain Hartle-hawking state
#AskAbhijit
Sir is it true that Indus Valley Civilisation didn't had any emperor?
We never know
@@Sharmaji-lu2bp We should know!!! Sir explained previously about the King Rimush who allegedly fought with the Marhashi people(who were helped by the people of Meluha or Indus Valley Civilisation). So, if the army of Meluha helped them in war then they must have had a commander which in turn signifies that they might have had an emperor or a chief.
The Egyptians and Mesopotamians also had kings, so why would be Indus Valley Civilisation an exception!!!!
"Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
Probably a Democracy, or the King was elected by a Council of some sorts
They try to show it as a very peaceful race of people. But if u look at sports of Harappans. They had hunting sword fighting etc was very popular according to archaelogists. The first to Tame a elephant in the world and sacrificial bulls in rituals with massive swords on Tablets are also found.
Seljuk Turks are ruling Anatolia 300 years before Chengis Khan in 950 AD
sir also many believe that persian music influenced the hindustani sangeetha. is it true? if so how much of it contributed to hindustani/carnatic music?
@Anuraag Gosaain i doubt that. Coz greek/hellen music had no connection to sangeeta. They are completly different.
@@sh1tzzyloda914 what are the factors we can recognise that is of persian origin? is it raga, tala or what? if you know, pls share.
@@ripper5941 im from karnataka. i learnt carnatic music is indigenous. but im asking about the sufi influence on hindustani music.
@@sh1tzzyloda914 thanks for the info. do you know any original persian songs that can refer to these ragas?
@@sh1tzzyloda914 thanks alot. i have now gained some more knowledge because of you
01:48 - Correction: the Turks already migrated to the west after the fall of the Gokturks one of the clans who started to learn Persian and convert to Islam were the Seljuk Turks. Furthermore the Tengrist Turks from the east joined the Mongol state and fought against Turkic or Mongol tribes who were against Genghis Khan and after the fall of the Mongol state Turkification happened more on the Western parts of the emipire while the Eastern parts started to mix with the locals as well and started to accept Buddhism. Also the Sultanate of Rum (2nd version of the Seljuk state) got weakened by the Mongol state into different tribes in Anatolia and the Mamluks however fought the Mongol invasions off. After all this the house of Osman started to emerge and others namely the Mamluks, Golden horde and the Timurids who all fought against eachother and also not to forget later on the Mughals.
The Mongol empire was the Turkic-Mongol empire, 7 in 8 soldiers were Turkic and the language was Uygur Turkish. It was the Turkic delhi sultanate who defeated them in India and it was the Mameluke Turks of Egypt who defeated them in Syria. When the Mongol empire split into 4 parts, 3 of them were directly ruled by Turkic dynasties. The Turco-Mongol empire was 90% comprised of Turkic peoples. Its a new thing that we try to seperate them since the Mongols look cool these days and we don't want to give the Turks any clout.
The ruling class referred themselves as Turks and hated Mongols as well
Underrated chennal
Only 6 lakhs subscribers
Atleast this channel deserves more than 2 million 3:44
1-Turkic and Mongolic peoples aren’t ethnically or linguistically related to each other :) They are only culturally similar also some Turks got Mongolized and some Mongols got Turkified
2-Average Turk has 35% Medieval Turkic DNA which is more than Indic DNA of Indians and Bengalis
3-By this logic Northern Indians are not Indic peoples because they don’t look Indic
its impossible to have 35% medieval turkic dna specially anatolains
No they are not, they are different peoples ,they speak different languages.
Actually you are talking about north Indian and north east India are not Turks they are Tibeto Burman
True
In one of your videos ,sir you said after the Prithvi Raj Chauhan was captured he was taken to Afghanistan
Can you please show from where is this information is taken
The reason is their is a theory which says Chauhan was killed on spot without any second thought
#AskAbhijit
His grave is still in afghanistan!
@@sh1tzzyloda914 yeah when 2nd battle was done and they were on defensive he was killed when their was opportunity
@@kingqueen104 his burend accoding to rajput rituals their is no grave
Sir your views on Bhaghat Singh.
what about people of uttarakhand and Himachal
Pls make on the empires india and world
In turkey, 70% of the people are of Greek, Caucasian ethnicity, still they call themselves turkey😂
Yeah culturally or linguistically they are turk.genetically they are Greek.
Actually turk word comes from Turkmenistan and not turkey.old name of Turkey is Anatolia.
Truckic Orr turks me difference hai bhai!
Because people of turkey in medieval era were enslaved and colonized by turkic people and assimilated people of anatolia with themselves.
That's why today's colonial mindset generation of turkey think themselves as turkic and named their country Turkey.
And of anatolian ethnicity too. Anatolians just didn't die out.
Turks of Turkey are converted Greeks, and pakistanis of Pakistan are converted Indians 😄
No, Suleyman Shah was not the first Turk to enter Anatolia it was Sultan Alp Arslan the Seljuk Sultan of Iran who defeated the Eastern Roman Empire at the battle of Manzikert which eventually lead to Turkification of the Anatolian peninsula. Turkish right wingers of cite this battle as proof that by the right of conquest the Anatolian peninsula belongs to them
Let me guess again we are the same people.
Babar considered himself as half turk and half mongol. Mughal is a south asian name for mongol. Turks also call mughals as moĝol.
Sir please explain Dalia Lama 🙏
Most of the Turkish people have paternal Turkish genes and maternal foreign genes. That is why you see such diversity in modern day Turkey. For the last thousand years it was like that. Back then normal Turkish man used to have 2-3 wives and mostly the second and third were from a different background.
👍
Your view on Shashi Tharoor specially his hatred towards British and love towards turks #AskAbhijit
Ghandi had the same view.
#AskAbhijit sir why stephen hawking did not believe in god
What is din a ilhai religion ( i think i might have misspelled) and akbar was really a secular king
In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat
and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp
and he was born in Anatolia .
Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,
Turkic languages are mostly not mutually intelligable because of vocab. Grammar is more or less similar but vocabulary is so diverse.
तेल लगा लो डाबर का....
😂😂😂😂
Nam mit gya Rana sanga ka
no Mongols are not Turkic. it is as calling jews as Arabs. Jewish and Arabic languages are even closer than Mongolian and Turkic languages. example
urt üstei okhin (Mongolian) = Long haired girl (English ofcourse)
Uzun saçlı kız (Turkish) = Uzun çaçlı kız (Uyghur) = uzyn saçly gyz (Türkmenistan) =uzun saçlı qız (Azerbayjan) = uzın şaş qız (Kazakh) =uzun çaçtuu kız (Kyrgyz)=uzun sochli qiz (Uzbek)
#AskAbhijit - do many of the bad practices like sati pratha, dowry system, bal vivah, and ghunghat pratha really was practiced in ancient India and belongs to solely practiced by Hindus. And many of the people try to defend dowry system and recognise them as gifts and it's an open secret . Are they right in defending it
Dowry system was started during Mughals rule in India. They used to marry and forcibly ask for Dowry. As we know they were Malechh. And their mindset was also cheap they used to think females as property. And regular basis of wandering in Rajputana with evil eyes forced the specially Rajasthani women to wear full Ghunghat.
Since I read Vedic scriptures I think I would like to answer it too even though the question is for abhijit sir.
Yes sati, dowry, goonghat and child marriage happened in ancient india but.......
NOT THE WAY IT IS PRACTISED IN KALIYUGA
1. IN MAHABHARAT, madri commits sati but rajmata kunti doesnt commit sati. Why? Because sati was the will of the wife and it depended solely on how the relationship was between the husband and wife. Sati wasnt just a matter of honour of chastity for women but even a matter of pride for men as they would feel rejected by their wife even after they loved them so much.why? Its a rule made by god that man cant enter the heavens without his wife. How will you enter until your wife dies with u?
Then why did kunti not commit? Because sati didnt force women in terms of pregnancy, woman being an initiated disciple on a spiritual path wasnt needed to commit sati, women who had young kids like kunti had pandavas to take care of. Some women didnt commit sati because they hated their husbands and just went to a hermitage to get moksha etc and didnt even go back to their own parents.
So sati wasnt about forcing women to jump on funeral pyres of men. IT SOLELY DEPENDED ON THE WOMAN'S SITUATION.
During invasions, our vedic inheritance law was changed. The property after the husband dies belongs to the wife and not the "male heir" but mughals and british changed the laws and forced women to commit sati so in many cases even if women were pregnant or had a male heir. They committed sati along with their children.
So sati was never "evil" but WAS MADE EVIL BY INVADERS.
GOONGHAT PRATHA,
In mahabharat, veiling system for women was followed in imperial capital cities and by women of uper classes. You will find draupadi being veiled but radharani was never veiled. Reason? The odhan that we wear in the north was always tucked with the chuda mani so that it doesnt cover the head but covers the back of the head only. Why? It is important to keep your head without any "cloth" for better meditation, austerities and penances. You can ask any sadhu living in himalaya on this. Ever seen a sadhu or sadhvi covering their full head while meditating? Obviously no because its was never allowed.
Full covering of head especially like the rajasthanis happened because of mughal invasions. Those days nothing existed like love jihad, they simply abducted hindu girls and whom will u report to? The king? The king was a muslim. Like he will care.
So in short, veiling of the face was done in entire india both north and south as mentioned in mahabharat but not like arabians even arabians never had purdah system. Ever seen princess jasmine with a hijab? No if u look closely she only had a veil. In india, women made their own colourful embroideries on the transparent veils of silk and cotton and other raw materials and this was open to fashion. Every woman had her own embroidery style which signified her way of noblety and class. These were the mannerisms of the upper classes especially the military class of india. The fact is women were allowed to choose in india. It wasnt compulsory. A princess can roam about without any veil on her face within the palace and other women but when distinguished guests arrived women took pleasure in teasing the opposite genders, especially the unmarried girls. It wasnt compulsory after marriage really until unless polyandry was involved. Different kingdoms had different practises. Everything is mentioned in mahabharat. Read it. Basically it was a thing women enjoyed as it was seen as fashion in india. In arabia, mostly women wore plain veils not the embroidered and colourful ones that indian women wore. Kamasutra also says that women can use this tactic to attract men. This is precisely what happened back then😑 because women werent uneducated for example krishna's eldest son with rukmini(i think) was kidnapped by the daughter of tripurasura with the help of her best friend. She liked him since the first she saw him, both women were well equiped with 64 arts and had yogic powers. So even women kidnapped men in ancient india and they both were wearing veils that time. This story is mentioned in 10th canto of srimad bhagavtam. Later on, after krishna defeated tripurasura in the battle he got the enemy's daughter marry his eldest son and they lived happily ever after. Veiling was used as a tool to attract the opposite gender not to suppress women.
Ghoonghat is horribly suppressing and its so bland. Please read veda. Everything is explained properly there.
DURING INVASIONS, whichever hindu girl didnt wear veil or cover her face was abducted therefore the Hindu women were forced to cover themsleves fully to protect themsleves from being abducted. They were very dark times.
DOWRY SYSTEM
IN MAHBHARAT, its mentioned drupad giving money horses etc to pandavas after they got married to draupadi but they were draupadi's personal property. Husbands were allowed to take care of their Wife's inheritance property (now its called dahej) so as not cause unnecessary pressure or stress on the wife. If you love your wife it is natural for you to take care of everything she takes care of. BUT.......
Before a marriage happened, shagun used to arrive from the boy's house and then after all rasams they were married and the woman would take her fair share of inheritance from her house to her new home. This is the actual vedic law. You are also allowed to give a leaf as inheritance to your daughter if yoy ar every poor. Inheritance of the girl is basically offered to vishnu as marriage is called vivah yajna. Its a yajna, not a mere ceremony. Those 7 vows are the vows given to vishnu where 49 firegods bear your testimony infront of the holy fire and the girl's inheritance is seen as a security offered to vishnu as a symbol of sincerity and detachment. It remains with the daughter which also has streedhan.
INVASIONS = inheritance laws changed from wife to male heir. In kamasutra, the sage says that even if the man has lost interest in his wife , the wife must make sure that the inheritance goes to her so as not to invite unnecessary kukarma.
so british and mughals only leeched off money from us while the highly respected status of a mother was degraded lower than her son. After wards, marriages were done on how much money can the daughter -in-law come with. The property strictly belongs to the daughter , not to her husband's families as mentioned in the veda. So dowry is an invasion concept. It was actually offered by the daughter's father to vishnu As a symbol of detachment. Its never offered to the husband. Hindus need to read the veda. They are following all nonsense.
BAL VIVAH
veda states that a girl should be married off before she hits puberty or before she gets menarche. In ancient days, women got periods at the age of 16-19. Unlike today when girls are having periods at the age of 10-16. Why? More stress increases and more the adharama increases, earlier the women of that society will get periods. When did this all happen? During Invasions. Why? Because u dont give proper nutrition to the girl child. Its a very toxic and sinful karma. Krishna says in BG who ever is sinful, i give him birth in sinful womb again and again. So these people who support nonsense in the name of child marriage also have to suffer in their next lifetime.
All punishments of sins are explained by garuda in garuda purana, you can read that too.
so marriage according should be fixed before menarche but the girl and boy are to be married only after the boy conpletes his bhramcharya with the permission of his spiritual master. The boy completed it at the age of 25. Till then the girl would be whta? 20? So only matriages were fixed but DURING INVASIONS due to deep fear and insecurity about the daughter being abducted people even married their daughters at the age of 5. Why?? VEDA SAY IF A WIFE HAS A GOOD HUSBAND, SHE IS THE MOST FORTUNATE BUT IF SHE HAS A BAD HUSBAND SHE IS THE MOST UNFORTUNATE (until obviously she becomes a sadhvi like meerabai etc?) this is also why sati happened only after the death of the husband not after the death of the husband's parents. Why?? In its truest sense, sages say that only the husband will truly be ever sincere to his wife. In laws will never be sincere. Well this is actually correct.
Funny part is, bhramins and sages had nuclear families until one of them had a widow mother and lived in forests or in poverty. Mostly joint families were seen in military, business and labour class. Its very funny dont you think?
so bal vivah was done because of invasions. So yeah it did affect men but women were those victims who couldnt even voice out their opinions.
fun fact = north india also celebrated first period of a girl but we banned it ourselves because the moment anyone declared that their is fertile now, the mughals would barge in, abduct and leave. THE END😑
dowry was a mixture of streedhan (inheritance from one's mother) and inheritance from father to their daughter NOT TO THE DAUGHTER'S HUSBAND. THEREFORE , we also find vedic kings mentioned in veda who wanted daughters to pass their inheritance too. Kings also gave villages as inheritance to their daughters.
now? ITS HORRIBLE.
Their were marriages where the entire list was announced infront of yagna by the pandits along with both of the ancestry (vanshavalli) of bride and groom. Seriosuly just read the veda. You will get all the answers.
so these things existed back then but not to suppress women but only to enhance their life because our culture was spiritual and not materialistic like today you have people asking for a car as dowry in marriage. Absolutely horrible.
sorry for grammatical and spelling mistakes. I am too tired to edit it fully.
for more, refer to veda.
@@sheetalverma8940 great🙌🕉️
@@sheetalverma8940 where did you read all this? I would love to read too
In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like India and bharat
and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp
and he was born in Anatolia .
Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,
The campagne of the mongols to west asia started after we migrated to anatolia in 1071
The mongols came in 1200s to anatolia
And since then we live here
🇹🇷🤝🇲🇳 no hate we are brothers now
Some say that Turk was a tribe originated from Iran
sir are pashtuns descendants of turkic tribes or are they the descendants of iranic tribes ???
Iranic.
Neither. Indo aryan originally now mixed
The great turkic Empire's
we will take vengeance once the hindu empire rises
emperor Timur and Babur ,although a Turkish, claimed legal and family descent from the Moguls...
Sorry Abhijit, but The Seljuks were before the Mongols in todays Turkey, already in the 11th century, whereas the Mongols expansion was in the 13th century.
Babur was feom central Asia uzbeki or Tajikistan
🎉
The Turks of türkiye and azeris are successors of sultanate of rum which inturn is successors of seljuk empire.
The outbreeded with locals caucasian so quite different from central asian turks
Turks are just Turks best ethnicity 🐺
A group of barbaric tribes that roamed Central Asia. Even the Arabs preceded you in civilization
@@Y0ussef.Turks brought civilization to the Middle East
Basically mordern day turkey people are descendant of turks who rulled otomon empire as well empire in india such as mughals dynasty and delhi sultunate but turks who rulled india didnt look like europeans then why mordern turkish people look like european ?
Because they get mixed with local Greeks, Armenians, Slavic people in the Balkans and Russians/Ukrainians. Most of the Turkish people have paternal Turkish genes and maternal foreign genes. My father have slant eyes but I don’t for example.
#askAbhijitChavda Do some modern indians have a small amount of Turkic DNA from the Turkic empires that rules India?
#AskAbhijitChavdaJi
Can you please invite praveen mohan Ji on your talk show 🙏
What happened to the original inhabitants of Anatolia? Did they not convert to Islam and assume Turkic identity.
@@xanshen9011 Exactly, they are not ethnic Turks.
When Turks invade Anatolia,Native Anatolia's population is quite low and Turkic tribes are crowd.
@@myesil1526 Anatolia and Constantinople was the center of orthodox Christianity and you are saying it was sparsely populated?
@@madhugreenleaf How Did Turks came Nicea from Manzikert just in 10 years?Byzantine crowded cities stay on west anatolia and coast.So Byzantine ruled west anatolia until 14.century.Also in 1204,Why Did emperor's son in law establish a state western anatolia(nicea)instead of Greece?because roman population is crowded in this region.Please Not be prejudice about Turks.I say truth.
In arbic antulia and turki are synonyms
How are you EM
I am indian🇮🇳👳 turk and i proud to be a turk
How is that possible..are you descendants of mughals?
how do you know?
Lol you aren't turk if you like Chinese than you are turk
@@bibeksinha9914😂 no Turkish looks like Chinese. We do have weak slant eye features and that’s all. Oghuz Turks have Caucasian/Middle eastern/European mixed looks, Kipchaks have stronger Asian features and Karluks are a mixture of Oghuz and Kipchaks.
How about Azerbaijani?
Azeri turks were the rulers of Persia not India
Azerbazani is a shia turkish.
Some people in up still call themselves turks
Sorry but he is giving wrong information. Not all Turks look like "Mongol". I don't even understand why it is called "Mongoloid look".
It's true that some Turks have "Asiatic" looks, but Turks in Turkey are mostly Oghuz Turks aka Turkmen, thus we don't necessarily look "Asian". Also some Tatars and other Turkic groups look pretty much like Turks from Turkey. Historically Turks have existed all the way from almost North Korea to Crimea, Ukraine. So you wouldn't expect them to be all look alike.
He is right bro. u are wrong
Turks and mongols origin is same. They come under Altaic language famliy . Both mongols and turks practiced the same relgion tengrism(proto turkic relgion) in ancient times before islam. They orginated from today parts of siberia and mongolia
Medieval Arab writers noted that Tibetans and Turks resembled each other, and that they often were not able to tell the difference between Turks and Tibetans.
On Western Turkic coins "the faces of the governor and governess are clearly mongoloid (a roundish face, narrow eyes), and the portrait have definite old Türk features (long hair, absence of headdress of the governor, a tricorn headdress of the governess)".
And turkey turks are converted Greeks(european) just like pakistani who are converted indians hindu or buddhist.
Turks where mixed from the very beginning, chinese despiction of some khans are a clear proof of that, or the names that khans had. "Ethnic pure" doesnt exist or didnt exist, well on orkhun inscriptions the khan back then warned his folk of chinese marriage
The origin of the word " ottoman " comes from Tamil Nadu. It's derived from the word " utaman. " Utama means important.
Ottoman empire/sultanat-e-Osmania named after the founder Osman ghazi.To whom Romans called ottomans .(the descendants of Osman or ottoman)
😂
I didn't know the Moguls were a Turkic people. Very interesting. Thanks
He is talking about their facial features , people from Central Asia & Mongolia look quiet similar
Not only that. Gengiz Khans army had more Turks than Mongols.
Micheál they were called Mogul by their adversaries only; Persians and the English elite.
They probably believed it was a racist slur at the time.
The eastern step people were mongols.Turks were central step people.Kazakh,Uzbek,Turkmen,Hazra,Kyrgiz,Tatar,Uyghur,Turk all are Turkic.Turks have lost mongoloid features because of excessive genetic mixing with greeks,slavs,persians and arabs.
no Mongols are not Turkic. it is as calling jews as Arabs. Jewish and Arabic languages are even closer than Mongolian and Turkic languages. example
urt üstei okhin (Mongolian) = Long haired girl (English ofcourse)
Uzun saçlı kız (Turkish) = Uzun çaçlı kız (Uyghur) = uzyn saçly gyz (Türkmenistan) =uzun saçlı qız (Azerbayjan) = uzın şaş qız (Kazakh) =uzun çaçtuu kız (Kyrgyz)=uzun sochli qiz (Uzbek)
Huns were Turkic peoples of Oghur branch they are not ancestors of Mongols :)
We are all Turks
🇹🇷🇦🇿🇹🇲🇺🇿🇰🇿🇰🇬
You have mixed up some what diaspora history here although you are somewhat right and somewhat wrong here, the actual Turkic people were from the western part of central Asia or eastern Anatolia instead of from western part of today's china. Nonetheless the Turkic language dialect had already spread to southern Siberian regions to western parts of China which is known as Uyghur region. The Turkic people in their early history had a slight appearance of Mongolic faces but not all. And the indian invasions were mostly done by mongolic descendants and later by mongols themselves directly before Muslim conquerers of Delhi sultanate and later Tamuri-Turks (moghals)
But India's court language under the Mughals was Persian, so these Turks/Mughals didn't speak the Turkish language, instead, they spoke Persian?
Kyonki babarnama truckic me tha lekin Humayun ki begham Persian thi Orr akber veershal rana umerkot amarkot vale ka hi Na jaya J vanshaj tha
No they adopted Persian language
perian and turkish are same
there is only different in script
@@freethinker9630 no wrong, completely different languages. in that time persian was official language in too many turkic nation, because persian language was superior for diplomatic actions. turkic hasnt developed yet for that.
@@burakahmettr8193 i know both , and turkish and persian just same as tamil and malaylam
Sir you are also look like gengis khan. Maybe your ancestors mixed up. And that is great
Dear Abhijit you should have know that the Turks are much longer in Anatolia then you mention, the oficially as early as 1071 since the battle of manzikert the seljchuk empire against the east roman empire, but historically the turks have even before 1071 in anatolia
In arabic turki is synonym of anatolia ,just like Misr and Egypt
and ottoman is not from central asia , he from Kayi tribe and great grand father of suleman was Arsalan Alp
and he was born in Anatolia .
Every one know that from middle east to europe but this person spreading abhjit spreading his own fake theories ,
There are so many Mughal( Turk ) live in India. Mainly in Moradabad,Amroha,Rampur,Sambhal etc (up).
It is one of the best explanation of turkic pwople i heard from a non turk. I think everythinf you say is correct. Only turks run their kifes from mongols is semi true. Yes some did but some joined mongol army.
Most of the soldiers in the Mongol army under Chingis Khan were from Turkic tribes .
Correction. Most of the soldiers of Mongol army = Mongol-Turkic, Turkic speaking Mongols and Mongol-Turkic union clans. Look history and you will know these Turkic-Mongols or Mongol-Turkic. They were basically ethnic Mongol/Mongolians with some Turkic admixture of clans, language, origin. Kind of like how many western Turkic tribes are just Turkified Iranians, Europeans.
Isn't Genghis Khan himself Turkic? Arent the Mughals from Persia? Because it seems like the sultanate were Turkic
Genghis Khan wasn't Turkic, he was a Mongol. Mughals were not from Persia, they were originally from central Asia (Uzbekistan).
Genghis Khan was a Mongol. Mongols are different from Turkic people. Babar came from present day Uzbekistan and was ethnically Turkic. However, Mughals were a 'Persianate' kingdom, which means they adopted Persian language and customs but were not ethnically Persian.
No, mughals were persianized, not Persian they are entirely different. Just like how many south east Asian empires were indianized not indian
Genghis Khan pure Mongol tha halaku Khan bhi
never seen a video with zero likes before
How did the Mughul Empire call itself by the way ?
#Askabhijit did world first aircraft was made by shivkar bapu talpde
Aapne Kabhi Turkey dekha hai?, abhi bhi Turkey Main origin Turkmens in Anatolia Main rehta hai. Me Turk hoo to Muhhe pata hai.
Aaj se main Bharat ke musalmano ko Turkik hee bolungi bola karungi 👍🏼yeh vaise inko hee maante hain 👍🏼✌🏼😀😁👹
Thanku
@@asmafatima1917 But mostly Are Converted People Of Indian Origin
Turkish people look different, dark and European looking with blue eyes also Greek looking people, but they identify with Turkic, does it mean Mongol looks?, because Mongolia ruled Turkey for sometime.
Turkic look has nothing to do with Mongolic look
Indian people have still wrong thoughts about relationship between turkic rulers of India and turks of Turkey. Turks of Turkey hadn't had any relationship with India in the history. They only moved to the west. Turks of Uzbekistan(uzbeks) ruled India for centuries. You cannot find about this actually. Because the name of Uzbek was given to the whole nation actaully after 16th century. Babur, founder of Mughal Empire was born near my city called ancient Akhsi city. Most indians don't know about this, because our history is not illuminated well unlike Turkish history.
@@FilesdocumentsAndreposit-kr3vb yes, you still have wrong thought about this again. Uzbeks, living in Fergana Valley of Uzbekistan are actually the same nation with Timur. And in other parts of Uzbekistan, uzbeks and timurid population already mixed with each other. That's why Uzbeks have right to claim Timur as our hero. And Timur spoke old uzbek(Chaghatai turkic). Russians changed the name of Chaghatai language to Uzbek in 1920s. People, outside Central Asia, cannot undarstand such kind of matters so easily.
@@FilesdocumentsAndreposit-kr3vb I don't know rule of Baburids(Mughals) in Pakistan and India much. I know some about rule of Aurangzeb and Shah Jahan.
@@muhammadjonzokirov8369 then FK all of you , let me tell you we hate you from the core
@@muhammadjonzokirov8369 we don't hate you coz of of ethnicity but religion if uzbeks conquered india and would have followed Vedic culture we will be proud on them but they followed Islam 🤮🤮🤮🤮
we will take vengeance once the hindu empire rises
This isn't entirely accurate, the oghuz branch of turkics were only on average around 30 percent mongoloid themselves , and were already majority caucasian. Also turkic peoples have always been a mix of caucasian and mongoloid from the beginning of theor history . Chinese described many of them with red hair and light coloured eyes and dna tests on ancient turks from altai and central asia confirm that they were. The mongol invasions greatly influenced the genome of the turkic people that remained in central asia and also timur was an ethnic mongol that was turkified
Well let me tell you are wrong. Racially speaking they were mixed race but mostly East Asian Early Medieval Turks genetics: The early Medieval Türk (earlyMed_Turk) derived the major ancestry from ANA at a proportion of 62.2%, the remainder from BMAC (10.7%) and Western Steppe Afanasievo nomad (27.1%). Have you seen nenets, Hmongs, and Siberian Uralics, yes there are Kazakhs with red hair, blonde hair too. Big mistake by always comparing billion dark hair Chinese (although some mountain Chinese have brownish hair). Look at the Hmong they are pure East Asian have colored hair.
Turkik nations belong to Mongoila, and Mongolia is the home og turkik nations