Kangana Ranaut Permanently Removed From Twitter After Controversial Post

[Drizzt]

I'm doubtful about this.

Instead of blaming this British for this indiscriminate massacre, which admittedly was a response to the killing of British civilians in Jhansi, you are blaming the Rani of Jhansi just because she chose to defend Jhansi. Just wow.

Both British and Rani are to be blamed for massacre of common people of Jhansi. British were the hammer, Rani's political ambition was the anvil. She was no selfless freedom fighter as in common public imagination, just another cold calculating feudal monarch.

The following lines don't represent her in reality, like 90% of her public perception among masses, just propaganda of land lords who came into existence due to Maratha Empire.
" Khoob Ladi Mardani Woh To Jhansi Wali Rani Thi. "

She tagged along lol.

Truth is bitter.

Any proof of this?
Here's another link: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/lakshmibai-the-warrior-queen-who-fought-british-rule-in-india

"In March of 1858, Rose’s troops descended on Jhansi, and the warrior queen led her troops into battle. Eventually, Jhansi’s resistance faltered, and the queen escaped into the night with her adopted son, decamping in a nearby town. "

"The other rebel leaders had not listened to her suggestion to prepare for an attack on Gwalior, and the fort fell on June 16, 1858. The rani was commanding a large Indian force the next day when she was killed in battle. "

Have you started confusing Kangana Ranaut with Rani Lakshmibai? Kangana Ranaut is just an actor who played Rani Lakshmibai so please direct all your protests to her instead of directing it at Rani Lakshmibai.

Again, any proof of this? You are just making up so many things. No leader will command so much respect if that leader isn't doing anything. Your hypothesis lacks substance and meaning.

She wouldn't get even 1% of the respect and fame, if masses knew her for who she really was. She is just another cold calculating ruler. Given a fake heroic image by the propaganda of land lords, sprouted during Maratha Empire rule.

To be honest, I haven't heard a single person who said that Rani Lakshmibai didn't fight the British, you are the first person who is saying this.
The Britishers themselves talk about her: Colonel Mason wrote in his History of the Indian Mutiny that ”whatever her faults in British eyes may have been, her countrymen will ever remember that she was driven by ill-treatment into rebellion, and that she lived and died for her country.”

Again, please don't think Rani Lakshmibai is Kanagana Ranaut. Maybe you are trying to equate the two .

Few other quotes of Britishers themselves:
"She was the bravest and best military leader of the rebels. A man among mutineers," wrote Sir Hugh Rose. And Lord Cumberland said: "The Rani is remarkable for her bravery, cleverness and perseverance; her generosity to her subordinates was unbounded. These qualities, combined with her rank, rendered her the most dangerous of all the rebel leaders."

One John Latimer of the Central India Field Force even praised the Rani's military capabilities when he wrote 'Seeing her army broken and defeated, with rage in her heart and tears in her eyes, she mounted her horse and made her course towards Gwalior. Here the last stand was made, she disdained further flight, and died, with a heroism worthy of a better cause. Her courage shines pre-eminent and can only be equalled but not eclipsed by that of Joan of Arc'.

I repeat this again, British officers praised her a lot for political reasons and public relations building, post 1858. And they gave lots of statements in the English Press, painting Rani as Indian Joan O Arch, but they were mostly for English public consumption.

But what Rani actually was/did in reality is quite different, it has nothing to do with British praise. She was no different from any other feudal monarch. Common masses were mere cattle to her. There was no reason for common population of Jhansi to die for a privileged Rani's political ambitions or loss of revenue. I don't know why you want to change this true description?

 

[baqai]

Good riddance India's Karen

 

[KedarT]

Both British and Rani are to be blamed for massacre of common people of Jhansi. British were the hammer, Rani's political ambition was the anvil. She was no selfless freedom fighter as in common public imagination, just another cold calculating feudal monarch.

Are you really saying no king/queen/country should not be allowed to defend their land so that a massacre can be prevented? Should the Britishers have surrendered during German bombing during WW2. Similarly, should the Soviets have surrendered during the German blitzkrieg? Most of the blame lies on the Britishers who wanted revenge, Rani Lakshmibai just tried to defend her own kingdom which she was completely allowed to do.

She wouldn't get even 1% of the respect and fame, if masses knew her for who she really was. She is just another cold calculating ruler. Given a fake heroic image by the propaganda of land lords, sprouted during Maratha Empire rule.

I repeat this again, British officers praised her a lot for political reasons and public relations building, post 1858. And they gave lots of statements in the English Press, painting Rani as Indian Joan O Arch, but they were mostly for English public consumption.

Any proofs of this? Most of the discussion on this topic is me giving actual links while you are just trying to give reasons to 'paint' her as a queen who has been propped up. There's no article or link anywhere that substantiates your claims and while that's fine, you should fully have your opinion, however I find your theories very hollow. I've agreed earlier already that she fought the British for her own agenda of ruling over her own kingdom but I don't agree to your statements which basically want to show her as some useless ruler who just happened to die due to a stray bullet as if you want some fancy death (watching too much Bollywood) to validate her bravery.
Earlier, you said that she ran away and I pointed out that she escaped just the day before the Jhansi fortress was breached. I said that she wouldn't even have fought the British if she was afraid of them and could have completely surrendered Jhansi on the 1st day itself. Then you said that she tagged along with Tatia Tope, Nanasaheb, Nawab of Banda, etc and that she didn't even fight. To that I posted a link where it's clearly written that she herself led the troops and fought the British, the British officers themselves state that.
And to that, you are now saying that British acknowledged her bravery due to some political reasons and public relations building lol, again you don't have anything to validate this. There's not just 1 British officer, but 3-4 different British officers who have positive views of her which I have shared in post 75.

You are changing your goalposts so often now that I don't think there's any need for me to continue on this debate. You are basically hellbent on going against common public opinion, which is acceptable as long as it sounds logical which what you are saying isn't.

 

[Drizzt]

Are you really saying no king/queen/country should not be allowed to defend their land so that a massacre can be prevented? Should the Britishers have surrendered during German bombing during WW2. Similarly, should the Soviets have surrendered during the German blitzkrieg? Most of the blame lies on the Britishers who wanted revenge, Rani Lakshmibai just tried to defend her own kingdom which she was completely allowed to do.

You just compared ill-equipped small town Jhansi, to Britain in WWII and to Soviet. Jhansi is in the middle of British India, which Rani Surrendered to British 3 years ago in 1854, with no fight. Both Britain and Soviet prevailed against Germany in WWII. There was no chance of victory in case of Jhansi, Rani just tested British resolve with her schemes to regain rule, which common people of Jhansi paid with their lives. Basically, Rani used civilian population of Jhansi as human shields, purely with monetary and political gains in mind.

Rani mostly only put forward financial arguments, for Jhansi, in a letter to her English lawyer "John Lang", just reveals the calculative mind of Rani. Rani had no feeling of love or patriotism in her mind for Jhansi, British and Russians fought against Germans in WWII for patriotism.
" The revenues of Jhansi were some six lacs (60,OOOl) a year, and after disbursing the expenses of government, and paying the troops in the late Rajah's service, the balance was some two lacs and a half (25,OOOl) profit. The " troops" were not numerous, under 1000 in all, and they were chiefly horsemen. The arrangement, when the country was annexed, was simply this: that the Ranee should receive a pension of 6000l a year, to be paid monthly. The Ranee's object in asking me to visit her at Jhansi was to consult me as to the possibility of getting the order for annexation annulled, or reversed. "

Any proofs of this? Most of the discussion on this topic is me giving actual links while you are just trying to give reasons to 'paint' her as a queen who has been propped up. There's no article or link anywhere that substantiates your claims and while that's fine, you should fully have your opinion, however I find your theories very hollow. I've agreed earlier already that she fought the British for her own agenda of ruling over her own kingdom but I don't agree to your statements which basically want to show her as some useless ruler who just happened to die due to a stray bullet as if you want some fancy death (watching too much Bollywood) to validate her bravery.
Earlier, you said that she ran away and I pointed out that she escaped just the day before the Jhansi fortress was breached. I said that she wouldn't even have fought the British if she was afraid of them and could have completely surrendered Jhansi on the 1st day itself. Then you said that she tagged along with Tatia Tope, Nanasaheb, Nawab of Banda, etc and that she didn't even fight. To that I posted a link where it's clearly written that she herself led the troops and fought the British, the British officers themselves state that.
And to that, you are now saying that British acknowledged her bravery due to some political reasons and public relations building lol, again you don't have anything to validate this. There's not just 1 British officer, but 3-4 different British officers who have positive views of her which I have shared in post 75.

You are changing your goalposts so often now that I don't think there's any need for me to continue on this debate. You are basically hellbent on going against common public opinion, which is acceptable as long as it sounds logical which what you are saying isn't.

I will repeat it again, lives of people in Jhansi were more valuable than Rani not getting 25000 pound sterling revenue.

I don't know how statements of some Birtish officers matter, Jhansi Rani story was popular during that time in Britain. Most British officers you quoted here wanted to get on the popularity bandwagon, and get some books published.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Rani_of_Jhansi_in_Colonial_'Mutiny'_Fiction
Check out the large number books published by retired/serving Birtish officers during that time.
https://archive.org/search.php?query=jhansi rani
Most of them demonize Rani, that doesn't make Rani a villain.

Rani was just another cold calculating leader, who killed innocent people of Jhansi for her feud with Birtish for money. I read through all the quote and articles you shared, nothing changes that fact.

 

[KedarT]

You just compared ill-equipped small town Jhansi, to Britain in WWII and to Soviet. Jhansi is in the middle of British India, which Rani Surrendered to British 3 years ago in 1854, with no fight. Both Britain and Soviet prevailed against Germany in WWII. There was no chance of victory in case of Jhansi, Rani just tested British resolve with her schemes to regain rule, which common people of Jhansi paid with their lives. Basically, Rani used civilian population of Jhansi as human shields, purely with monetary and political gains in mind.

Rani mostly only put forward financial arguments, for Jhansi, in a letter to her English lawyer "John Lang", just reveals the calculative mind of Rani. Rani had no feeling of love or patriotism in her mind for Jhansi, British and Russians fought against Germans in WWII for patriotism.
" The revenues of Jhansi were some six lacs (60,OOOl) a year, and after disbursing the expenses of government, and paying the troops in the late Rajah's service, the balance was some two lacs and a half (25,OOOl) profit. The " troops" were not numerous, under 1000 in all, and they were chiefly horsemen. The arrangement, when the country was annexed, was simply this: that the Ranee should receive a pension of 6000l a year, to be paid monthly. The Ranee's object in asking me to visit her at Jhansi was to consult me as to the possibility of getting the order for annexation annulled, or reversed. "

In my previous reply, I have already mentioned that there's no need for me to continue on this debate because you change your goalposts too often and on top that you come up with absurd logic or rationale. One such example of changing goalpost is your claim that she didn't even fight, to she died an ordinary death, to she did fight but without any sense of patriotism for Jhansi and that the British officers falsely praised her for public relations lol. You are confused anyway, so let's rest this.