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

[jamahir]

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.

But @TheGreatMaratha was presenting a case in the modern times.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

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.

Notwithstanding the obvious moral arguments, your suggestion is strategically risky anyway.There is no real guarantee that subjugation of certain groups with tolerance of others will bring about the desired political outcomes.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

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

I don't want any war. I was just giving an example.

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.

But isn't that a classic case of Stockholme Syndrome then? Ok I'll give an example. Suppose, Pashtuns invade Pakistan and loot Pakistan. India goes to war against Afghanistan. India loses. India hasn't looted anything from Pakistan but lost the war. Afterwards, Afghanistan goes back. Is it really logical for Pakistan then to treat Afghanistanis as heroes just because they beat India and even though they looted Pakistan?
Will you consider Britishers as angels? Why don't you have missiles after Britishers who occupied both India and Pakistan?

 

[jamahir]

*"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"

The Maratha Ditch.

In December 1750, Jaipur’s Maharaja Ishwari Singh committed suicide (getting himself bitten by a cobra) because he was unable to pay the Marathas.

What a tragic way to go !!

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

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

What the Marathas did was plain wrong. I fully accept that. I won't support injustice just because I belong to the same clan.

 

[SIPRA]

But @TheGreatMaratha was presenting a case in the modern times.

Yes. What I have said, holds true for the modern times, as well.

The real thing is that current relations should not be prisoner of the past doings, whether factual or concocted, of certain historical persons.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I don't want any war. I was just giving an example.

But isn't that a classic case of Stockholme Syndrome then? Ok I'll give an example. Suppose, Pashtuns invade Pakistan and loot Pakistan. India goes to war against Afghanistan. India loses. India hasn't looted anything from Pakistan but lost the war. Afterwards, Afghanistan goes back. Is it really logical for Pakistan then to treat Afghanistanis as heroes just because they beat India and even though they looted Pakistan?
Will you consider Britishers as angels? Why don't you have missiles after Britishers who occupied both India and Pakistan?

It's comparative. What matters is who did the worst/best on balance for your community. Now that comes down to interpretation and its inherent biases.

I feel preference towards abdali despite his crimes against Muslims and people of the Indus valley, because he put a greater threat to rest - that of subjugation under a Hindu caste structure.

I believe we'd all be better off had anyone - mughals, abdali, British, Portuguese I don't care - just cleansed the subcontinent of such nonsense. How on earth can human sacrifice have survived in our part of the world. It beggars belief! But it forces me to thank the Lord that somewhere along the line of history, enough of my distant ancestors converted from Hinduism or animism or whatever it was to a faith that annulled such nonsense unequivocally and unambiguously.

So no offence but I'll back abdali in this one.

 

[SIPRA]

Notwithstanding the obvious moral arguments, your suggestion is strategically risky anyway.There is no real guarantee that subjugation of certain groups with tolerance of others will bring about the desired political outcomes.

@AfrazulMandal always come up with risky proposals. See is post history.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Will you consider Britishers as angels? Why don't you have missiles after Britishers who occupied both India and Pakistan?

Pakistan will name missiles after whatever pisses Indians off the most. This is simple psy-ops. If India takes the bait and writes defensive articles and holds press conferences about Pakistani missile names, then Pakistan will keep doing it.

A "Mountbatten missile" wouldn't be a bad idea. Then again, certain Indians quite liked certain Mountbatten family members.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

It's comparative. What matters is who did the worst/best on balance for your community. Now that comes down to interpretation and its inherent biases.

I feel preference towards abdali despite his crimes against Muslims and people of the Indus valley, because he put a greater threat to rest - that of subjugation under a Hindu caste structure.

I believe we'd all be better off had anyone - mughals, abdali, British, Portuguese I don't care - just cleansed the subcontinent of such nonsense. How on earth can human sacrifice have survived in our part of the world. It beggars belief! But it forces me to thank the Lord that somewhere along the line of history, enough of my distant ancestors converted from Hinduism or animism or whatever it was to a faith that annulled such nonsense unequivocally and unambiguously.

So no offence but I'll back abdali in this one.

You have a big misconception then. I don't know what sacrifice you are talking about. And regarding the caste system, well, I don't believe in it but I still would call myself a Hindu. There is no compulsion of believing in caste system to be a Hindu. And I don't see any sacrifice that you are talking about. In fact, many Hindus don't even kill/eat animals, why would they sacrifice humans. Majority Hindus are peaceful. And if Hindus were so violent, why don't I see terrorist attacks of Hindus in the West or just plain civil war in India? This is all factual analysis.

And I don't care which religion people belong to as long as they live respectfully with each other. That's just my opinion.

 

[jamahir]

The real thing is that current relations should not be prisoner of the past doings, whether factual or concocted, of certain historical persons.

That I will not argue against.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Pakistan will name missiles after whatever pisses Indians off the most. This is simple psy-ops. If India takes the bait and writes defensive articles and holds press conferences about Pakistani missile names, then Pakistan will keep doing it.

A "Mountbatten missile" wouldn't be a bad idea. Then again, certain Indians quite liked certain Mountbatten family members.

Feel to free to pose it to your government. Britishers will be the most amused though. We don't really care. As I have said earlier, I don't want war with Pakistan. I just want people of both countries to respect each other.

 

[jamahir]

I believe we'd all be better off had anyone - mughals, abdali, British, Portuguese I don't care - just cleansed the subcontinent of such nonsense. How on earth can human sacrifice have survived in our part of the world. It beggars belief! But it forces me to thank the Lord that somewhere along the line of history, enough of my distant ancestors converted from Hinduism or animism or whatever it was to a faith that annulled such nonsense unequivocally and unambiguously.

How about honor killing and feudalism that is very much part of current Pakistan ??

As I have said earlier, I don't want war with Pakistan. I just want people of both countries to respect each other.

 

[Sam.]

What the Marathas did was plain wrong. I fully accept that. I won't support injustice just because I belong to the same clan.

We accept that bro and yes we Jats didn't sided with Marathas because they were as tyrant as Abdalis. There are stories from our elders where Marthas demanded grain and food as a supply to the army where our region was hit with the drought so to fight Abdali. Also Mughals lobbied marthas so they can rule delhi while we wanted to rule it. I know we are not innocent either so i will share few reason why we didn't help-

Jats under Raja Suraj Mal : Jats were ready to help marathas , later they got back to Bharatpur due to 2 reasons :

1. There was an argument between sadashivrao Bhau and Jat Raja Surajmal , Sadashiv Bhau being Brahmin and brother of Peshwa did not wanted Jat Raja to set equivalent to him but Raja did so , this angered Sadashiv Bhau and he scolded Jat Raja for that , Raja felt being insult so he left .

2. And secondly Jats wanted to rule Delhi but marathas did not accepted this they wanted to place Mughal emperor Shah Alam II on the Throne of Delhi.

Despite this after the end of battle of Panipat the Jat Raja give refuge to all the people who came after Panipat to his Kingdom he gave them necessary your objects like food and clothes , provided them with doctors and he kept Maratha womens including wife of Sadashiv Rao Parvati Bai and other womens of Maratha Sardar in his fort . He also served for injured soldiers and his wife Maharani Kishori Bai personally escorted Parvati Bai and other women to Maratha borders .

Rajputs ( states of Jaipur and Jodhpur ) : Actually there was so much hate for Marathas among Rajput as they ask them to pay Chauth which they never wanted to pay and also in because Rajputs sided in Mughals initially so Maratha considered them less friendly . But they thought that now Marathas are weak and it is time for them to carve out their independent Empires so so they decided not to support Marathas but one good thing that it was they isn't supported Abdali as well as they knew that these Afghan will destroy all Hindus including them . they gave a lot of money and food articles for man and cattle to Marathas and provided them with insignificant number of men .

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You have a big misconception then. I don't know what sacrifice you are talking about. And regarding the caste system, well, I don't believe in it but I still would call myself a Hindu. There is no compulsion of believing in caste system to be a Hindu. And I don't see any sacrifice that you are talking about. In fact, many Hindus don't even kill/eat animals, why would they sacrifice humans. Majority Hindus are peaceful. And if Hindus were so violent, why don't I see terrorist attacks of Hindus in the West or just plain civil war in India? This is all factual analysis.

And I don't care which religion people belong to as long as they live respectfully with each other. That's just my opinion.

Hang on I didn't actually say Hindus are "violent" as a general trait so please don't put words in my mouth. I criticised caste, ignorance in some Indian villages leading to HUMAN SACRIFICE (it does still happen due to some typical witchcraft b.s...you're welcome to confirm via google) and past war crimes by medieval Hindu rulers including marathas. I also criticise Hindutva as an extreme perversion of Hinduism that fosters violence against minorities and other perceived threats to Hindu dominance. But I don't believe for a second that Hindus in general are somehow prone to violence. Why would I insult millions of Pakistanis in such a way?