Your tries of spins are useless and pointless, so stop your spins about Muslims.
Defeat of Sikh army and death of Hari Singh Nalwa in battle of Jamrud
- Thread starter Samandri
- Start date
FaujHistorian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,272
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
Remember Brahmins and high caste slaughtered the original inhabitants of Ganga valley. Made the survivors into low caste and utouchable. They still are Hindus. Aren't they.
Punjabis and Pathans and other Northies have done similar butchery. but never enshrined permanent discrimination into an organized religion like Hinduism.
Jaggu
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 621
- Reaction score
- 1
You are partially right but you forget or disregard that Abdali had been a part of Nader Shah's guard which had actually encountered Sikhs during his campaign in India (who ironically looted their baggage train on the way back to Iran) so to say Sikhs did not register on his radar would be false especially since Nader Shah himself had remarked that Sikhs would benefit greatly from his destruction of the Mughal state mechanisms. So Sikhs were not technically in charge correct but they were given a lot more leeway to come out of their hiding places after the Mughal defeat, Mughals still controlled Lahore but beyond that they had little control over Punjab or even Sindh infact Ahmad Shah marched unhindered up to Lahore because there was no other Mughal force around and after he defeated the Mughal army in Lahore both Punjab and Sindh were just ceded to him.
Your own Sikh sources attest to the fact that after Nader Shah's victory in Delhi Sikhs came out of jungles and looted many villages and outposts in Punjab that were before under the Mughals with ease. Who do you think were in these villages and why do you think Punjabi Muslims lamented for a return of Mughal rule?
Originally when abdali had begun his military operations in India they were just border raids. But eventually he began acquiring wealth and capturing military equipment of the Mughals and became strong enough to take on the full might of the powerful Mughal Suba of Lahore. At the time the Sikhs remained neutral between the Afghans and Mughals because they viewed the Mughals as the bigger enemy who is being weakened by constant warfare with Abdali. While Mughal authority was greatly weakened all over India but in Punjab it was firm and strong as ever, it only grew weak due to constant invasions.
Sikhs did come out of hiding but not to loot villagers. What wealth did the villagers have that they were going to loot? it was always the wealthy Jagirdars, Mughal aristocracy, Faujdars and their allies who were the targets for looting. Secondly, think about it, if Muslim Punjabi villagers of Punjab who were the majority of population were looted/killed or persecuted by the Sikhs why didn't they fight back as the small Sikh minority did when they were pushed to the corner? these Muslim villagers were of the same blood, same biradaries and belonged to the same villages as the Sikhs. So their reaction when being pushed over the edge would have also been the same. But we get a different picture. During Sikh-Afghan wars, they would mostly support the Sikhs. Two incidents prove their support for Sikhs:
One during the time of Abdali himself who was approached by the Muslim leaders of Lahore and asked him to give Lahore Suba to the Bhangis because whenever Bhangis took charge of Lahore after Abdali left, they would repair old mosques and neighborhoods which had been abandoned for decades. Impressed by hearing this Abdali also offered to give Suba Lahore to the Bhangis who turned down the offer because they did not want to rule under Abdali's name.
Second incident that is known is when the Kasuri Pathan chief Nizam Ud Din Khan approached the Muslim leaders of Lahore to allow him to take over Lahore, they rejected his offer and invited the young Ranjit Singh from Gujranwala instead.
Last edited:
Sam_Bajwa
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 359
- Reaction score
- 0
Jaggu brother was there any other option available you know very well that it was very important at that time to take the war away from punjab more over it was the only way through which large afghan tribes of those areas be segregated from the Kabul afghans and so in a way be able to confront the afghans
And regarding the story I didn't made that up it has been mentioned in some book .
And regarding the story I didn't made that up it has been mentioned in some book .
That is some concocted history right there Sir. There's no evidence to prove your story. You may use it to justify your second statement but that does not make it true.
FaujHistorian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,272
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
Bhai Jaan,
Care to explain if millions will declare themselves shudras, and untouchable. And that too, voluntarily?
Thank you
You were insinuating Brahmins massacring Shudras which is not the case.
FaujHistorian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,272
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
No insinuation bro,
Just ask yourself.
If you were among those millions of original inhabitants of Ganga Valley. And then one fine morning you wake up and
-------- declare yourself a shudra (or shooder) or so dirty and filthy that no one wants to be around you.
Not only that you also
-------- declare your parents a shudra (or shooder) or so dirty and filthy that no one wants to be around them.
and
-------- declare your wife a shudra (or shooder) or so dirty and filthy that no one wants to be around her (I could say more about the way shoodra women have been treated for centuries, but I digress).
and
-------- declare your granma and granpa a shudra (or shooder) or so dirty and filthy that no one wants to be around them.
and
-------- declare your daughters a shudra (or shooder) or so dirty and filthy that no one wants to be around them (that no decent boy of good repute will ever marry them).
and
-------- declare your grand kids a shudra (or shooder) or so dirty and filthy that no one wants to be around them.
So they ALL loose pretty much every opportunity to run a clean business, build homes, and earn decent living and instead spend your whole life shoveling $hit from the roof tops of other people.
So yeah.
The original inhabitants of Ganga valley did all this to themselves, and no Brahmin and no upper caste was involved in this travesty.
peace
Last edited:
Fauji bhai
Untouchables and shudras are different, more importantly the varna system initially was much different than the rigid caste systems of later times when it became hereditary rather than being bsed on merit. The caste system turned rigid gradually over a period of time and so did discriminations associated with it for the lower castes which increased starting from later vedic age.
Moreover this topic of who is the original inhabitant of the ganga valley is a controversial one , so better not stir the hornest's nest by raking this issue.
Sam_Bajwa
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 359
- Reaction score
- 0
True early caste system was very different from the one prevalent today major caste shuffle took place during the conflicts of sanatan dharma and baudh dharma and then the hereditary system.
Even today you can go to haridwar and tell some purohit to change your caste
It's possible even today
FaujHistorian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,272
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
When you say "early"
What is early for you bhai.
6000 BC
5000 BC
4000 BC
...
..
0 BC
0 AD
1000 AD
2000 AD
?
What is early.
Those who defend vernas and caste system do so to defend inhuman subjugations of natives.
Sadly.
By early i meant as far back as 2000 years ago there was mingling between different groups in India and this stopped in the later vedic age some 2000-1900 years ago when caste system became rigid. This fact has been corroborated by DNA tests .
Caste system and Varna system are different , please don't confuse between the two.
FaujHistorian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,272
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
my bro
"mingling" was done "always".
It was high caste man vs. low caste woman.
If a low caste man ever tried to "mingle", he was quickly neutered if not murdered right away.
Just remember, caste system was always rigid, as it was used to exploit the natives especially their women and other resources in Ganga Valley.
nothing new. Such things were done by powerful tribe all over the world.
The only diff here is that such nastiness was enshrined as part of brahmanic religion.
Hope this clarifies a bit.
I'm afraid you are wrong here Sir, mingling was not only between high caste men and low caste women when caste system was not rigid, infact when castes became rigid any alliance between a man or woman of high caste with low castes was forbidden. A man marrying low caste women would be ostracized from his community. Any inter caste marriage was a taboo .
You need to study about the evolution of caste system in India and the degradation of varna system into caste system which occured gradually.
Its very convinient to make a villian out of brahmins when the truth is that even the so called low castes strictly observe endogamy and any inter cast marriage among the low caste is looked down upon. Strict endogamy was the result of rigidity of caste system and every group observed that .
FaujHistorian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 12,272
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
The villain I mean real villain is the concept of dharma as practiced by majority Hindus.
Brahmins are just one small section. Other "high castes" are equally if not more responsible.
So please do not take these comments as attacks on Brahmins. It is not.
I am talking about historic subjugation of indigenous people and done over millennia if not much longer.
Similar threads
- Article
