Tipu Sultan, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's lives to be turned into world class productions: Fawad Chaudhry

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Relax. I don't claim ownership of Tipu. I simply respect him. He's certainly one of yours, but your own countrymen seem intent on disowning him for "crimes against mother Hindustan".

Indians should very much be proud of Tipu for his excellent resilience and innovation. Indeed, it is quite tiresome for civilised observers that your countrymen disown 1000 years of your own history.

It's their history ...Let them do whatever they want to do with it...and rule by Muslim rulers in modern day India started in year 1192 and ended in majority of India by 1730s due to the Marathas...so it's more like 550 years...I personally like Tipur for his innovation, but also accept he pursued targeted oppression of Hindu communities...but that's alright..whoever has the power and can getaway with it, usually does


but you should run a campaign to stop the great Indus Nation from celebrating Gangetic heroes else it might get deracinated....you already took in tens of millions of Gangetic advisasis and gifted them your most economically important city....Are these new movies a way to get the Indus region ready for a new deluge of Gangetic adivasis?

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Now you are putting words in my mouth my position is clear that Tipu had vices but he was better than the Marathas in the sence that he tried to develop his constituency in various ways.

I compared Marthas with Ghazni because their main bread and butter dependent upon looting, the regions where Martha's ruled were improvished and little farming was done so their main target was influential parts like in Bengal or gangetic upper plains where they collected extortion money like "Chauth" kind of like protection money that thugs take. Now don' tell this is not in history. Infact they were known as bargis and they plundered bengal many a times like Ghazni did in Somnath. They looted people raped women folk and Hindus included too and it became so much worse that even the Hindus living there asked Nawab Alivardi Khan (grand father of Siraj Ud Daulah last nawab of independent bengal) to repeal the Martha's and subsequently there was truce after they lost to Nawab . So much hindu pride that they killed their fellow Hindus and subsequently they attacked the Hindu Rajput kings and the Sikhs. Everyone got fed up with Marathas that against Ahmed Shah Abdali no one helped them and in third battle of Panipat they lost decisively to him and in this battle many Maratha stalwarts got killed like Sada Shiv Bhau and many more marking the end of dream of Maratha dominance in pan India helping the Britishers to take control the rule in India.

Maratha invasions of Bengal - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Marathas reconquered Delhi within 10 years of Panipat and defeated the British in their first war after Panipat...on top of that Sikhs and Dogras completely destroyed Afghan power in Upper Indus and Kashmir....The fact that NWFP is part of Pakistan, is largely due to the sacrifices made by the Sikhs ...Without the Sikh Empire, modern day Afghanistan would have been much much fatter

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

Marathas reconquered Delhi within 10 years of Panipat and defeated the British in their first war after Panipat...on top of that Sikhs and Dogras completely destroyed Afghan power in Upper Indus and Kashmir....The fact that NWFP is part of Pakistan, is largely due to the sacrifices made by the Sikhs ...Without the Sikh Empire, modern day Afghanistan would have been much much fatter

The battle was decisive enough that made Martha's dream crashed to be an pan Indian power like Mughals even though they made a comeback but it was not enough .

Sikhs after Ranjit Singh was a lost case infact Sikh empire vanished like house of cards . The Sikhs are given way too much credit to destroy Afghanistan even Britishers with all might could not do it forget Ranjit Singh.

 

[Robbie]

Pakistan proves once again that it has no identity.

After Afghans, now they are trying to appropriate Indians.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

The battle was decisive enough that made Martha's dream crashed to be an pan Indian power like Mughals even though they made a comeback but it was not enough .

Sikhs after Ranjit Singh was a lost case infact Sikh empire vanished like house of cards . The Sikhs are given way too much credit to destroy Afghanistan even Britishers with all might could not do it forget Ranjit Singh.

Sikhs didnot destroy Afghanistan but they destroyed Afghan hold on the fertile plains of NWFP and Punjab...for that Pakistan is indebted to the Sikhs..........+


First point I agree...without defeat at Panipat, Marathas would have the inertia to take out Rohillas and Oudh 10 years earlier....along with Nizam and Mysore probably,,,.....Battle of Buxar then would have been fought between the British and the Marathas in 1764 instead of between Mughals and the British in our timeline,,.....The critical mistake was Sadashiv Bhau was given command of Marathas instead of Raghunath Rao


But even in Alternate timeline....British would have ruled over Bengal.....they were too well entrenched to be dislodged by anyone else...Marathas could have staked out for freedom for around 40 percent of Indian subcontinent by playing the various powers against eachother deftfully...like how the King of Thailand Ram Mongkut did

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

All great Turkic personalities.....Are Pakistanis Turkic?
I would rather see something like the one below..It celebrates historical ethnicities of the Indus plains region

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

Sikhs didnot destroy Afghanistan but they destroyed Afghan hold on the fertile plains of NWFP and Punjab...for that Pakistan is indebted to the Sikhs..........+


First point I agree...without defeat at Panipat, Marathas would have the inertia to take out Rohillas and Oudh 10 years earlier....along with Nizam and Mysore probably,,,.....Battle of Buxar then would have been fought between the British and the Marathas in 1764 instead of between Mughals and the British in our timeline,,.....The critical mistake was Sadashiv Bhau was given command of Marathas instead of Raghunath Rao


But even in Alternate timeline....British would have ruled over Bengal.....they were too well entrenched to be dislodged by anyone else...Marathas could have staked out for freedom for around 40 percent of Indian subcontinent by playing the various powers against eachother deftfully...like how the King of Thailand Ram Mongkut did

In case of Sikhs their empire was short lived so Britishers should be credited for taking it under control.

Marathas could be a big power if they were not antagonistic with fellow non muslim with their thuggish mentality.

In case of Britishers not sure maybe or maybe not.

Sikhs could not

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

In case of Sikhs their empire was short lived so Britishers should be credited for taking it under control.

Marathas could be a big power if they were not antagonistic with fellow non muslim with their thuggish mentality.

In case of Britishers not sure maybe or maybe not.

Sikhs could not

People think Sikh empire was short lived but the effective control ofPunjab was under Sikh misls 1763 onwards...so they had a longevity of 86 long years...longer than Republic of India,Pakistan or Bangladesh at the present time

 

[masterchief_mirza]

But my position is more probable. If they had colonies in other far flung parts of the world, it's highly likely that they would have increased their colonies in India if given the chance. It's just that the British beat them in India (I'm sure you know about that). And my other point was regarding the inaction of Tipu against French colonies in India which is telling about whether really was against colonialism or was he just making a convenient mutual alliance which all kingdoms make. I'll still agree that my point is unprovable and theoretical but the French clearly didn't have a noble intention of removing Britishers to liberate India and free us from colonialism when they themselves had colonies in other parts of the world.


We are looking at history from a current standpoint where we know what action led to what effect. The rulers at that time wouldn't have even imagined the British taking full control of India in a few years. Forget that, their definition of what India is would have been completely different from what the present India is.

Now assume a scenario where Tipu French alliance beat the Marathas, Nizam and the British. After a few years, with the help of this victory the French become stronger and then take complete control over India. Just take a look at what happened in Bengal. The British helped one side (Mir Jafar) and defeated Siraj-ud-Daulah. Mir Jafar became the Nawab of Bengal but then he himself was deposed by the British. Why couldn't the same happen to Tipu?

Everyone was an opportunist at that time and even today. Even in the modern international relations, everyone is an opportunist so I really didn't understand what you mean by this.

No, Tipu wasn't an opportunist. He was consistent.

 

[KedarT]

I compared Marthas with Ghazni because their main bread and butter dependent upon looting, the regions where Martha's ruled were improvished and little farming was done so their main target was influential parts like in Bengal or gangetic upper plains where they collected extortion money like "Chauth" kind of like protection money that thugs take.

There's a concept called taking tribute. All rulers took tribute, even your beloved foreign Turkic rulers. Marathas just called it 'chauth' (one-fourth of revenue) which was probably a little high. The Mughals initially did call Marathas as thugs simply because they rebelled against them to carve out independent territories. Also, Marathas had a tradition to cross their boundaries and expand their kingdom every Dussehra and because of that they came into conflict with the Mughals quite a lot.

Infact they were known as bargis and they plundered bengal many a times like Ghazni did in Somnath. They looted people raped women folk and Hindus included too and it became so much worse that even the Hindus living there asked Nawab Alivardi Khan (grand father of Siraj Ud Daulah last nawab of independent bengal) to repeal the Martha's and subsequently there was truce after they lost to Nawab .

This is a dark episode and I won't deny that it shouldn't have happened. But comparing Marathas with Mahmud of Ghazni is wrong. Mahmud of Ghazni was known for destroying temples, killing non-Muslims and was also a foreign invader with no connection to India. Marathas didn't destroy mosques wherever they went.

Also your definition of losing is a bit imperfect, the Nawab conceded the whole of Orissa to the Marathas who were led by Raghoji Bhonsale.

So much hindu pride that they killed their fellow Hindus and subsequently they attacked the Hindu Rajput kings and the Sikhs. Everyone got fed up with Marathas that against Ahmed Shah Abdali no one helped them and in third battle of Panipat they lost decisively to him and in this battle many Maratha stalwarts got killed like Sada Shiv Bhau and many more marking the end of dream of Maratha dominance in pan India helping the Britishers to take control the rule in India.

A flawed foreign policy but it did help them expand rapidly at the expense of mainly the Mughals.

My last response for you

 

[KedarT]

No, Tipu wasn't an opportunist. He was consistent.

You are ignoring the point that I've written about taking help from the French which too is a colonial power.

I would rather see something like the one below..It celebrates historical ethnicities of the Indus plains region

This actually looks like a very well shot movie, didn't expect this from Pakistani cinema. Kudos to them.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You are ignoring the point that I've written about taking help from the French which too is a colonial power.

This actually looks like a very well shot movie, didn't expect this from Pakistani cinema. Kudos to them.

I'm not ignoring anything. I have already explained that he didn't seek to ally with the British, hence was consistent. The French had a minor colonial influence in India. You have ZERO evidence that French colonisers would have performed better or worse or identically to British ones if they controlled the same territory. Indeed, if you understood the Anglo-French relationship during this era, you would be aware that the French routinely "spoiled" British designs without exerting substantial colonial influence of their own. The USA and Canada are the most pertinent examples where this dynamic played out. The French were never significant colonizers of the subcontinent, hence were simply reduced to the level of allies against the British.

 

[KedarT]

The French had a minor colonial influence in India. You have ZERO evidence that French colonisers would have performed better or worse or identically to British ones if they controlled the same territory.

And that's because they were defeated by the British (Don't tell me you don't know anything about the Carnatic wars). Do you really think that with a power vacuum, the colonial powers would have just left India (which the British called the Crown Jewel) as it is? The French and the Portuguese (the Marathas did defeat Portuguese in a few battles) didn't gain as much prominence was because the British came out on top. With a power vacuum, it would easily have been the French. Of course, I don't have any evidence for that, but logically this had a higher chance of happening. Maybe the British wouldn't have been completely eliminated but instead India might have been divided between the French and the British. Anyway, let's rest this.

 

[Chhatrapati]

I never said he was a devout muslim, nor do I care if he wasn't. His principles obviously have overlap with Islamic principles but he wasn't a "perfect Muslim", as most kings or sultans can never be religiously adept by simple virtue of their earthly position. A certain degree of asceticism would be mandatory for anyone striving for religious piety. Where are you getting this Islamic Islamic Islamic spiel? What makes you think I care one iota whether x or y was a good Muslim not?

Smashing your filthy ancestors and looting their brahminist temple wealth was a wonderful act of basic humanity, aimed squarely at an oppressive caste based regime dreamt up by steppe land migrants to enslave those darker skinned and more basic in functionality than your fortunate ancestry. Any humanitarian would have done likewise.

As for Pakistanis warring against your lineages, the Mlechas of the IVC regions were very much your enemies, and we're glad they were. Today, we happily continue their fight against your contemporaries.

Tipu is certainly respected by us for aligning with basic humanitarian principles. It's not an "Islam" thing you see. We love the godless naxalites, the godless Chinese and the Sikh khalistanis for identical reasons.

Oh yeah, now you don't care about him being a Muslim or Mushrik.

Whatever you call, history doesn't change at your whim. My ancestors never bend over backwards to get screwed by every invader out there then make movies glorifying them. lol!

I like how you invent words to glorify Tipu Basic humanitarian principle my foot. You are making movies of random south Indian king because he is a Muslim. You guys in general have a weak grasp at the history of the subcontinent in general and India in particular, that's why you're clutching at straws like this.

You can love any extremists out there, which only shows your love for terrorists, big F'ing surprise.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

And that's because they were defeated by the British (Don't tell me you don't know anything about the Carnatic wars). Do you really think that with a power vacuum, the colonial powers would have just left India (which the British called the Crown Jewel) as it is? The French and the Portuguese (the Marathas did defeat Portuguese in a few battles) didn't gain as much prominence was because the British came out on top. With a power vacuum, it would easily have been the French. Of course, I don't have any evidence for that, but logically this had a higher chance of happening. Maybe the British wouldn't have been completely eliminated but instead India might have been divided between the French and the British. Anyway, let's rest this.

Your major fallacy is in assuming Tipu would have aided the French in a true colonial adventure (had the British been defeated) against other indians, as the marathas did.

Tipu took help from a nation who were the enemies of the British at the time. Tipu did not take help from the colonial masters of Hindustan. The marathas however did ally with Hindustan's colonial masters.

Again, you already get this as you're one of the more intellectual posters around here. Nevertheless, you preach the usual mantra.

Oh yeah, now you don't care about him being a Muslim or Mushrik.

Whatever you call, history doesn't change at your whim. My ancestors never bend over backwards to get screwed by every invader out there then make movies glorifying them. lol!

I like how you invent words to glorify Tipu Basic humanitarian principle my foot. You are making movies of random south Indian king because he is a Muslim. You guys in general have a weak grasp at the history of the subcontinent in general and India in particular, that's why you're clutching at straws like this.

You can love any extremists out there, which only shows your love for terrorists, big F'ing surprise.

The marathas did bend over for the British though. Bent over Jackals.