Panipat (film) 2019 – A Stark Reminder to The Muslims of Hindustan About Their Betrayal

[masterchief_mirza]

Yes. I read somewhere that in medieval Hindu armies, caste structure also seriously hindered with the meritocracy. In contrast, in Muslim armies, often a bought up slave could rise to become commander, within a short time. Another reason, that author gave was excessive use of opium by most of the Rajput commanders, even during the battles.

Excellent points. Numerous slave armies (mamelukes, janissaries) have excelled throughout Arabian and ottoman history. Without slaves/serfs being trained or allowed to excel, Islamic and world history would have been very different.

To be honest, I don't see any Indian Christian celebrating British invasion like Muslims celebrate Islamic invasion of India. Indian Christians know that Britishers are outsiders. That's it. No confusion.

Mughals mainly built India. The British mainly looted it. Hindus will never accept this truth.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Marathas are next in line for vir chakra apparently after abhinandan set the standard for losing yet still "winning".

Tell me a ruler from present day Pakistan who conquered large swathes of land. Again, I don't know, there might be one. But most rulers don't even belong to present day Pakistan. What are you so proud of? Marathas belong to Maharashtra, Rajputs before that were ruling Delhi. Again Delhi is given too much importance. Most rulers were not even after Delhi but were happy in their localities.

Tell me about an indigenous ruler from Pakistan who owed allegiance to present day Pakistan as well.

The thing is some part of PDF provides for nationalistic thought and that clouds the mind into not talking objectively.



What about the Anglo-Indians ?? Just curious.

Don't know what their views are to be honest. But even present day Britishers think that colonialism was wrong.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

Incorrect.

Practically they disappeared. The Arabian peninsula, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen were Christian and Jewish majority region but now the Christian population constitutes not more than 2% of the total population of these countries.

Hinduism survived because of the tolerant nature of the Mughals and the Delhi Sultans.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Excellent points. Numerous slave armies (mamelukes, janissaries) have excelled throughout Arabian and ottoman history. Without slaves/serfs being trained or allowed to excel, Islamic and world history would have been very different.


Mughals mainly built India. The British mainly looted it. Hindus will never accept this truth.

Cool. I'll take over your house. And since I have taken your house for a long time, your house belongs to me. This house is much bigger and fruitful compared to my previous house and so I stayed. Now, even you and your family members have accepted me as the boss as I have acquired your house for a long time. Makes sense.

Practically they disappeared. The Arabian peninsula, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen were Christian and Jewish majority region but now the Christian population constitutes not more than 2% of the total population of these countries.

Hinduism survived because of the tolerant nature of the Mughals and the Delhi Sultans.

I wouldn't call tolerant nature my friend. Yes there have been tolerant kings but there have been absolutely brutal kings as well. Present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh was Hindu/Buddhist once. So it's not like the invaders were really docile.

Would like to add that even though there have been negative opinions from Pakistanis, I've enjoyed debating with you guys. It's interesting to see the different viewpoints that people have owing to where they live, culture, religion, etc. I think in this world there is no definition of what is right and what is wrong. It can change from time to time. And while people here support Abdali for invading past Pakistan, they wouldn't the least bit like it if Pashtuns from Afghanistan invade them now. Human minds are really complex based on the discussion I've had with you guys.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Tell me a ruler from present day Pakistan who conquered large swathes of land. Again, I don't know, there might be one. But most rulers don't even belong to present day Pakistan. What are you so proud of? Marathas belong to Maharashtra, Rajputs before that were ruling Delhi. Again Delhi is given too much importance. Most rulers were not even after Delhi but were happy in their localities.

Tell me about an indigenous ruler from Pakistan who owed allegiance to present day Pakistan as well.

I didn't mean to imply I was proud of abdali personally on some genetic level. I just like it when Brahmins and their early equivalents (whom modern Brahmins worship shamelessly) get put in their place. Who do they think they are honestly taking 200,000 servants to an open battle against a highly mobile sophisticated enemy?? The whole system was stupid, just as it is today. It begets arrogance and a sense of false entitlement and further promotes conspiring with certain invaders against other invaders, in order to preserve a flimsy nepotistic hierarchy. It is anathema to meritocracy, egalitarianism and just rewards for excellence.

Removing such things from the Indian subconscious would actually make India a very very powerful nation indeed. Hope it doesn't happen.

I'm really not bothered if no great medieval military leaders came from Pakistani territory.

Cool. I'll take over your house. And since I have taken your house for a long time, your house belongs to me. This house is much bigger and fruitful compared to my previous house and so I stayed. Now, even you and your family members have accepted me as the boss as I have acquired your house for a long time. Makes sense.

Come and try by all means. You'll lose and get a vir chakra awarded to you.

 

[jamahir]

Practically they disappeared. The Arabian peninsula, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen were Christian and Jewish majority region but now the Christian population constitutes not more than 2% of the total population of these countries.

I agree that there is not a large number of Christians in Iraq, especially after the 2003 invasion.

But in Lebanon there is a 40.4 percent Christian population, according to Wikipedia, and from the same page is this :

Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy that includes confessionalism, in which high-ranking offices are reserved for members of specific religious groups. The President, for example, has to be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi’a Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Speaker of Parliament Eastern Orthodox. This system is intended to deter sectarian conflict and to represent fairly the demographic distribution of the 18 recognized religious groups in government.

In Syria, there still are Christians and they support the current president, Bashar al Assad.

Iran, I agree, there is a minuscule population of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians.

Hinduism survived because of the tolerant nature of the Mughals and the Delhi Sultans.

Agreed.

 

[newb3e]

poor inferior hinduw trying to change history and make themselves look like some center of power and strength!

crazy what nationalism can do to!

 

[jamahir]

And while people here support Abdali for invading past Pakistan, they wouldn't the least bit like it if Pashtuns from Afghanistan invade them now.

Good point.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

Cool. I'll take over your house. And since I have taken your house for a long time, your house belongs to me. This house is much bigger and fruitful compared to my previous house and so I stayed. Now, even you and your family members have accepted me as the boss as I have acquired your house for a long time. Makes sense.


I wouldn't call tolerant nature my friend. Yes there have been tolerant kings but there have been absolutely brutal kings as well. Present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh was Hindu/Buddhist once. So it's not like the invaders were really docile.

Brother you have to understand the scenario of the world some 1000 years back. World was not like what it is today.

Back then mass conversions without force was common. Sri lanka, Myanmar, Cambodia, Tibet etc followed various religions before Buddhism but now they are Buddhist majority regions. Even China has the highest number of Buddhist at 300 million of the population of China being Buddhist. But Buddhism was not forced there yet they are Buddhist majority.

1000 years back, people were superstitious and were more concerned about religion. Also conversion of a tribal head or king also lead to mass conversion.

I believe Islam was not forced in Afghanistan or Pakistan though forced conversion may happened when Ummayuds invaded Afghanistan. Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians were greater in number even after Muslims took over.

But yes the Ummayuds, Abbasids and Rashidun Caliphate and Mamluks to a greater extent carried out forced conversion and coerced non Muslims into accepting Islam which led to disappearance of non muslims from middle East.

I would like to ask what the kings in Lahore, Peshawar, etc were doing when Ahmad Shah invaded your territories? And didn't Abdali loot fellow Muslims while Maratha Hindus waged a war against Abdali?

Ahmed Shah Abdali was least concerned about religion and he was more interested in invading.

Even Nadir Shah, the master of Abdali was a non practicing Shia Muslim who used to consume alcohol everyday.

 

[SIPRA]

Tell me a ruler from present day Pakistan who conquered large swathes of land. Again, I don't know, there might be one. But most rulers don't even belong to present day Pakistan. What are you so proud of? Marathas belong to Maharashtra, Rajputs before that were ruling Delhi. Again Delhi is given too much importance. Most rulers were not even after Delhi but were happy in their localities.

It is a matter of psychological association, which is one's own choice. Association can be religious, ideological, racial, ethnic and genealogical. These associations divide people in "We", "Us", "You", "They". It is only that most of the Pakistani Muslims give precedence to their religious associations, which is as well somewhat ideological, over their racial, ethnic and genealogical ones. Hence, an ownership of Ghaznavi, Ghori and Abdali, in historical perspective. In ultimate analysis, these relations are largely imaginary, but provide an identity.

 

[GHALIB]

In the next one; everyone of you is welcome to join

sure you won't be disappointed .

 

[SIPRA]

Good point.

Not really. The example is not relevant. Let us assume that India occupies Pakistan, by force and Muslims feel that they have been subjugated by Hindus. Now, again, an attack from Afghanistan, would be welcome. Muslims of Pakistan assess Abdali, in this perspective.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Don't know why Hindus lost most of the wars against Muslims.. This is not about Muslim Vs Muslim conquests... yeah we had many disagreements.. but wars against Hindus completely subjugated them.. at one point most of the presently known India became a ping pong ball between different Muslim rulers.

And we shouldn't forget the fact that Muslims were less than even 5% 1000 years back in present day India (still they are less than 20%.. Even then Hindus couldn't put up a decent fight against Muslims.

I love my history very much.. I know, now an Indian hindu will say that my ancestors lost the wars against Muslim invaders from the west... this is their usual argument to divert the conversation. First, I need to tell them I am not a descendant of Indian ancestors.. secondly, even if most of the Muslims living in India are descendants of Indian hindus or buddhists, according to our religion, we don't associate with them at all.. Converting to Islam gives a whole new meaning to life as we know it. A true Muslim (or the one who belongs to any other Abrahamic faiths) is not afraid of death, which gives him enough courage to be an aggressor even when he is defending his land..

But what I don't understand, this courage is not enough to subjugate 95% of the population. So definitely something is either missing in Hindus, or it is added to people when they convert to Islam.. and that's the power of FAITH.

Muslims then did not care about modern sensibilities.

Now if I ask you to destroy a temple - you will sing ... but our kanstituson, Islam gives them right to do bla bla.

No it does not. Pagans and polytheists are NOT people of the book. If you don't destroy temples at least have the decency to convert them into Masjids or schools etc. and make the Hindus and Sikhs of your nation to either accept Islam or leave.

islamic rulers in India became soft - Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs gave them gifts and even their own girls and plotted. When Islamic rule became weak they pounced.

 

[Kambojaric]

Marathas attacked and butchered Muslims too.

Marathas attacked and butchered Hindus as well *(see below). They raided, raped and looted Hindu monasteries like Srinegeri Shankaracharya. The myth of them as some kind of Hindu and thereby Indian nationalists is a modern invention to try and give some kind of legitimacy to the artificial construction that is the modern day Republic of India. No political entity called India has ever existed in human history, and ironically Indians including those present here are mocking Punjabis about Abdali, willfully ignoring that if their Hindu ancestors were non-Marathi, they too were probably looted, raped and massacred by their "holy" Marathas.

*"In the Maharashtra Purana, a poem in Bengali written by Gangaram, the poet describes the destruction caused by the raiders (Marathas) in great detail:
This time none escaped,
Brahmanas, and Vaisnavas, Sannyasis, and householders,
all had the same fate, and cows were massacred along with men"

https://scroll.in/article/776978/forgotten-indian-history-the-brutal-maratha-invasions-of-bengal

"The less said about Hindu unity against Muslims after the death of Aurangzeb the better. The fact is that the Marathas extorted the Rajput kingdoms mercilessly. There was such nastiness between them that the Rajputs actually massacred the Maratha soldiers who were occupying their city. In December 1750, Jaipur’s Maharaja Ishwari Singh committed suicide (getting himself bitten by a cobra) because he was unable to pay the Marathas.

Sir Jadunath writes that “on 10 January, some 4,000 Marathas entered Jaipur… (and) despising the helpless condition of a king propped up by their arms, seemed to have behaved towards Jaipur as a city taken by storm. Suddenly the pent-up hatred of the Rajputs burst forth; a riot broke out at noon, and the citizens attacked the unsuspecting Marathas. For nine hours slaughter and pillage raged.”

It is this precision and this clarity that makes us open our eyes to the world as it was in that period. Any notion that we have of Muslim oppression and Hindu liberation goes out of the window on reading this work. The Marathas campaigned for one thing alone, and that was called Chauth. It was a fourth of all the revenue that a kingdom produced."

https://www.thehindu.com/books/seeing-the-world-as-it-was/article24591915.ece

 

[SIPRA]

Marathas attacked and butchered Hindus as well *(see below). They raided, raped and looted Hindu monasteries like Srinegeri Shankaracharya. The myth of them as some kind of Hindu and thereby Indian nationalists is a modern invention to try and give some kind of legitimacy to the artificial construction that is the modern day Republic of India. No political entity called India has ever existed in human history, and ironically Indians including those present here are mocking Punjabis about Abdali, willfully ignoring that if their Hindu ancestors were non-Marathi, they too were probably looted, raped and massacred by their "holy" Marathas.

*"In the Maharashtra Purana, a poem in Bengali written by Gangaram, the poet describes the destruction caused by the raiders (Marathas) in great detail:
This time none escaped,
Brahmanas, and Vaisnavas, Sannyasis, and householders,
all had the same fate, and cows were massacred along with men"

https://scroll.in/article/776978/forgotten-indian-history-the-brutal-maratha-invasions-of-bengal

Excellent post. Appreciate.