The Maratha War of Independence

[Tshering22]

This is exactly why I respect Shivaji Maharaj.

King Shivaji was a valiant warrior. He is the architect of many special forces tactics that are used today by our forces knowingly or unknowingly. Despite the fact that his empire never encompassed us, I'd have loved to have him as the continuing ruler of India had he not been betrayed and had not the pesky colonials entered our region.

He reminds me of Mao Zedong. Mao Zedong, of course, wrote the book on guerilla warfare, fought the KMT government of China, then lead resistance against the Japanese for 8 years, then defeated the KMT government to control China, then defeated the world superpower USA in Korea, and then defeated USSR in the 1969 border conflict as well as several weaker foes on our periphery.

But the history books mention that Mao only came out after Chiang Kai Shek defeated the Japanese and were weary with the CCP taking power. Sorry for the counter but at least this is what I read in a few books.

It's almost like india wishes it was a unified state starting from 300 BC just like China was, but in fact until the British Raj india was always just a collection of hindu kingdoms who fought one another as well as domination from Islam.

Well, the Muslims liked to exaggerate their control. There was never a period of "peace" when they were accepted by local rulers. There are thousands of cases where hundreds of small wars were fought all the time against all Islamic rulers (including the so-called "great" Akbar who is glorified by self-ashamed leftist scum in our country intentionally). So they made imaginary maps of "control".

The truly problematic time was when Europeans came in. That time we weakened badly. Heck! I'd be darned to say that the first successful consolidation happened just south of my state-- in what is today Bangladesh.

Personally, I don't think Maurya Empire is real. There is no historical evidence for it at all. It was most likely just a legend. Gupta Empire may have been real.

Mauryan empire is real big time dude. Where do you think Arthashastra, the strategy masterpiece was devised? Where do you think our Coat of Arms comes from?

The fact is, Europeans and Islamic invaders propagated this lie that most of our "history" was a "myth" and what crap they've written about us is the real truth. Which is why most of what we call history including in faith, is called "myth" by western and Islamic scholars. I am sure a large part of your history was also framed by colonials and eliminated.

 

[manofwar]

Personally, I don't think Maurya Empire is real. There is no historical evidence for it at all. It was most likely just a legend.

Edicts of Ashoka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is unlimited evidence mate. You just need to do a little it of googling and travelling in India to see it
The biggest source are the stories that spread from the word of mouth

 

[Birbal]

Very true, Nationalism is a european concept. Before it was just loyalty towards particular kings and sultans.

Studying Shivaji's idealism and motivation, I can't help but think that he was a Deccan nationalist. I think his main motivation was not religious. Criticize Aurangzeb all you want, but his religious oppression was limited to destroying temples and taxing non-Muslims, in contrast to people like Tamerlane who gloated about killing hundreds of thousands of infidels. Shivaji had muslims in his government and army, just like Aurangzeb had hindus in his government and army (some of the biggest opponents the Marathas faced in the 27 years war were actually rajputs). I think what Shivaji saw was that the Mughal empire in Delhi was too far removed and too corrupt to properly rule the Deccan, and that an indigenous government from the Deccan was a worthy goal.

Unfortunately, by the time the English started attacking the Maratha empire, Shivaji's nationalism was lost and the Marathas were unable to fight back. Perhaps the greatest thing the English (completely unintentionally) did for us was to inspire nationalism, without which India would not be where it is today.

Edicts of Ashoka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is unlimited evidence mate. You just need to do a little it of googling and travelling in India to see it
The biggest source are the stories that spread from the word of mouth

I wouldn't respond to him. It's simply ridiculous to deny the existence of the Mauryan and Gupta empires. (The former had plenty of Greeks who documented it, while the latter has plenty of archeological evidence to document it).

 

[Tshering22]

Studying Shivaji's idealism and motivation, I can't help but think that he was a Deccan nationalist. I think his main motivation was not religious. Criticize Aurangzeb all you want, but his religious oppression was limited to destroying temples and taxing non-Muslims, in contrast to people like Tamerlane who gloated about killing hundreds of thousands of infidels.

Now isn't that too peaceful? Coming into a non-Islamic country, destroying temples and taxing the natives for believing in what they are... I am simply overflowing with compassion at this.

I can't believe you're defending deranged, sick lunatics like those barbaric invaders.

Shivaji had muslims in his government and army, just like Aurangzeb had hindus in his government and army (some of the biggest opponents the Marathas faced in the 27 years war were actually rajputs). I think what Shivaji saw was that the Mughal empire in Delhi was too far removed and too corrupt to properly rule the Deccan, and that an indigenous government from the Deccan was a worthy goal.

King Shivaji successfully conquered a reasonably large part of what is modern India today. Tell me, wouldn't it have been better to have him as the ruler than the pesky outsiders? If that was an option for me, I'd choose Marathas anyday over foreign scum.

Unfortunately, by the time the English started attacking the Maratha empire, Shivaji's nationalism was lost and the Marathas were unable to fight back. Perhaps the greatest thing the English (completely unintentionally) did for us was to inspire nationalism, without which India would not be where it is today.

Wrong. British only augmented a sense that was a predecessor to modern nationalism.

 

[Birbal]

Now isn't that too peaceful? Coming into a non-Islamic country, destroying temples and taxing the natives for believing in what they are... I am simply overflowing with compassion at this.

While I don't support taxing natives and destroying temples, it's pretty peaceful compared to what most invaders did (like say massacring and enslaving hundreds of thousands of "infidels").

I can't believe you're defending deranged, sick lunatics like those barbaric invaders.

I strongly dislike Aurangzeb for his lunacy and his constant warfare. But just cause I hate him doesn't mean I'll call him an extreme religious bigot.

King Shivaji successfully conquered a reasonably large part of what is modern India today. Tell me, wouldn't it have been better to have him as the ruler than the pesky outsiders? If that was an option for me, I'd choose Marathas anyday over foreign scum.

Absolutely. I think Shivaji was a brilliant visionary and an amazing king, and would have chosen him over a foreign ruler (or for that matter most local rulers) any day. I'm very proud of his legacy.

Wrong. British only augmented a sense that was a predecessor to modern nationalism.

The Indian Independence movement created nationalism in India. This movement would not have arisen without British (mis)rule.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Studying Shivaji's idealism and motivation, I can't help but think that he was a Deccan nationalist. I think his main motivation was not religious.

Religious or not, atleast religious intolerance was not there. Not one instance. When Kalyan's Subedar's daughter in law, who was very beautiful, was captured and presented to Shivaji, he reprimanded his general, compared the girl to his own mother and sent her back with a copy of the Quran.

This is why Shivaji became a legend, and is relevant to this day, as his ideas are in perfect harmony with the idea of modern India.

Aurangzeb, although a great emperor, was not Indian in his outlook, and that is precisely why many Pakistanis call him a hero. This divergence in views is because India and Pakistan are going to two different places. And thats perfect too.

 

[cloud_9]

This is the only historical period that indians can be proud of.

We are also proud of this

 

[Birbal]

This is in Marathi but the description on the video page has a summary in English.

 

[Bhairava]

Studying Shivaji's idealism and motivation, I can't help but think that he was a Deccan nationalist. I think his main motivation was not religious. Criticize Aurangzeb all you want, but his religious oppression was limited to destroying temples and taxing non-Muslims, in contrast to people like Tamerlane who gloated about killing hundreds of thousands of infidels. Shivaji had muslims in his government and army, just like Aurangzeb had hindus in his government and army (some of the biggest opponents the Marathas faced in the 27 years war were actually rajputs). I think what Shivaji saw was that the Mughal empire in Delhi was too far removed and too corrupt to properly rule the Deccan, and that an indigenous government from the Deccan was a worthy goal.

His ideals were not religious, if by religious you mean those of Mahmud Ghazni, Aurangazeb or Tamer Lane....his was to awaken the the spirit of Swarajya, the rejuvenation of the native Dharm which had gone to a deep slumber and defeat of outside invaders...it was no accident that the outsiders were Islamic invaders who did not miss a chance to crush Hinduism and by extension his ideals was the awakening of Bharat and give rise to a Hindu spirit of armed resistance.

Unfortunately, by the time the English started attacking the Maratha empire, Shivaji's nationalism was lost and the Marathas were unable to fight back. Perhaps the greatest thing the English (completely unintentionally) did for us was to inspire nationalism, without which India would not be where it is today.

It had nothing to do with "lack of nationalism"..the Marathas were horrendously weakened after the Third Battle of Panipat and they stood no chance against the English.

Wrong. British only augmented a sense that was a predecessor to modern nationalism.....

One which was awakened by the Maratha empire after centuries of slumber.

 

[Birbal]

It had nothing to do with "lack of nationalism"..the Marathas were horrendously weakened after the Third Battle of Panipat and they stood no chance against the English.

And yet they managed to win back much of North India after the Third Battle of Panipat, and were able to hold their own against the British at first.

Their main problem was that they didn't have national unity to fight against the British, but instead were split up into various factions - a problem which the British were able to exploit. Nationalism would have created unity.

 

[kingkobra]

Today is the day when Aurangzeb murdered our Chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj...I remember him as a great king who died young

जिव्हा कटी, खून बहाया। धरम का सौदा किया नहीं।।
शिवाजी का बेटा था वह। गलत राह पर चला नहीं।।
देश धरम पर मिटने वाला। शेर शिवा का छावा था।।
महापराक्रमी परम प्रतापी। एक ही शंभू राजा था।।
-कवी भूषण

छत्रपती संभाजी महाराजांना त्रिवार अभिवादन

 

[Bhairava]

I'm no Maratha...but I say with equal pride..Chatrapthi Shivaji Maharaj ki Jai...Har Har Mahadev..

 

[ptltejas]

Off the topic

i read somewhere

after independent Atly prime minister of

 

[MadDog]

@ ALL INDIAN MEMBERS ON THIS THREAD

Guys how the hell are you claiming that Aurangzeb was not a local and a foreign invader..maybe his ancestors were but he was born in subcontinent....grew up in the local environment just like his parents and grandparents.

If we start using your screwed up theory that a person is a foreigner just cuz his great great grandparents came from another country...then using this...Kashmiris are descendants of Aryans..they came from central Asia..they are foreigners...Baloch migrated from Aleppo..then they are foreigners....Qazilbash ( Pakistan's dictator/president Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan was a Qazilbaash) came with Nadir Shah..they are foreigners..Sayyeds across the world are Arab decent...then they are foriengers...what the hell dude.

The concept of "nation state" came in early 1900's....before that people used to migrate and settle across the world...this means today their respective countries should start considering them foreingers....this is such a screwed up and backward mentality which many indian friends on this forum have.

BTW...whoever wrote the article should atleast learn to spell Muslim names...its Zulfiqar not Julfiqar..lol

 

[kingkobra]

@ ALL INDIAN MEMBERS ON THIS THREAD

Guys how the hell are you claiming that Aurangzeb was not a local and a foreign invader..maybe his ancestors were but he was born in subcontinent....grew up in the local environment just like his parents and grandparents.

If we start using your screwed up theory that a person is a foreigner just cuz his great great grandparents came from another country...then using this...Kashmiris are descendants of Aryans..they came from central Asia..they are foreigners...Baloch migrated from Aleppo..then they are foreigners....Qazilbash ( Pakistan's dictator/president Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan was a Qazilbaash) came with Nadir Shah..they are foreigners..Sayyeds across the world are Arab decent...then they are foriengers...what the hell dude.

The concept of "nation state" came in early 1900's....before that people used to migrate and settle across the world...this means today their respective countries should start considering them foreingers....this is such a screwed up and backward mentality which many indian friends on this forum have.

BTW...whoever wrote the article should atleast learn to spell Muslim names...its Zulfiqar not Julfiqar..lol

one does not become Indian or local in india by being born in india...one becomes local indian when he/she respects local culture...
aamir khan who has afghanistani ancestry is Indian in all the sense...but Aurangzeb can never be an Indian...