India is about to spend a ridiculous $530 million on a statue in the middle of the Arabian sea

[beetle]

I don't get this obsession with statues .Such a waste in a country where so much needs to be done .

Stupid move Mr Modi.

[Muloghonto]

On 12/24/2016 at 10:33 AM, surajmal said:

Greatest Hindu of the last 1000 years... 530 million is chump change. Also, spend some money on Raigad please. That place should have been on unesco list before that ugly tomb. 

Nope, not even close. 

Makes for a good 'star wars-esque' little guy up against the odds taking down an empire story, but beyond that, the Marathas were primitive, backwards and had succession laws that would make even Chandragupta Maurya laugh for its backwardness. Its the Marathas that handed over India to the Brits and its the Marathas that showed they had no national aspirations, just aspirations of a conqueror who looks at his empire as a personal domain, not as a nation thats bigger than him or his needs. 

Despite being no fan of Gandhi, i will take him over Shivaji any day of the week and i can think of dozens of hindu names over the last 1000 years who i consider as more praiseworthy than just yet another marauder-turned-conqueror.

 

[Muloghonto]

18 hours ago, Austin 3:!6 said:

Nothing ridiculous about it. Chatrapati Shivaji was one of the greatest emperor and a brave man who defeated the Mughal expansion. Without him, India would have been an Islamic country today. Its a great gesture by government to have a statue of the great king.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Without him India would've been exactly what it was and what it ended up being. Shivaji came 1000 years after Muslim raids/conquests began in the subcontinent and only 400 odd years before today. So no, without him, there is no reason to think the British would've failed (they took down the Maratha empire, they could've taken down the Mughal empire as well) to conquer India or that India's demographics would be much different. 

 

[Detonator]

20 hours ago, BeautifulGame said:

Because movies and cars aren't made using Government money ?

Agreed. Lets take Hajj subsidy then. Whats the point of giving so much of tax payers money. What's the benefit?

[jusarrived]

My issue is that the idea is just copied . Why not do something original for a change. 

As for the money spent , its really peanuts tbh . Tourism is one of the most neglected sectors and has an scope to grow 10 fold and one of the sectors which can generate jobs .

[Texy]

One should see the burn amongst our padosi since it's a Hindu figure. 

[Sajid_Rana]

[Texy]

57 minutes ago, Sajid_Rana said:

Why not spend crores on poor Muslims sleeping on the streets of Lahore instead of buying Nuclear materials from China. 

[Tibarn]

 

Dozens of names above Shivaji, where do these clowns come from. 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

Dozens of names above Shivaji, where do these clowns come from. 

I'd put Netaji,Gandhi, BG Tilak, Naoroji, Tagore, Ramanujan, Raman, Mahalanobis, RM Roy, Rani Rashmoni- the list is pretty huge. Its not that hard to find names of Indians who've done more for India than an up jumped marauder who wanted a subcontinent sized personal fief. 

Just because he fought the Mughals doesn't make him an Indian hero, especially since he did f-all for India and Indians.

 

[surajmal]

21 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope, not even close. 

Makes for a good 'star wars-esque' little guy up against the odds taking down an empire story, but beyond that, the Marathas were primitive, backwards and had succession laws that would make even Chandragupta Maurya laugh for its backwardness. Its the Marathas that handed over India to the Brits and its the Marathas that showed they had no national aspirations, just aspirations of a conqueror who looks at his empire as a personal domain, not as a nation thats bigger than him or his needs. 

Despite being no fan of Gandhi, i will take him over Shivaji any day of the week and i can think of dozens of hindu names over the last 1000 years who i consider as more praiseworthy than just yet another marauder-turned-conqueror.

 

Crap. Field of candidates leaves a lot to be desired and perhaps that is why it is easy to over look him. But consider this, India was right in the middle of its dark ages with no hope in sight, fighting jihadis on one side and holding off the goras on the others. Shivaji put up a better fight than anyone one before or after him. Its not his fault, Hindu polity had decayed to the extent it did and that he couldn't see his objectives through. I look at him as a separate entity from the Marathas. 

 

Gandhi was a manchurian candidate. Less said about him the better. 

[surajmal]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I'd put Netaji,Gandhi, BG Tilak, Naoroji, Tagore, Ramanujan, Raman, Mahalanobis, RM Roy, Rani Rashmoni- the list is pretty huge. Its not that hard to find names of Indians who've done more for India than an up jumped marauder who wanted a subcontinent sized personal fief. 

Just because he fought the Mughals doesn't make him an Indian hero, especially since he did f-all for India and Indians.

 

ROFL wat? First 4 are politicians whose influence is limited to a period of 30 years. Tagore is a poet. thats it. I know Bongs have a habit of talking about cultural renaissance and what not. Thats like being the least worst of the group. You people didn't have much competition. Ramanujan was a theoretical mathematician... wont impact 99.9 percent of the population. Mahalanobis isn't known to anyone outside of people holding stats degrees. 

Roy was a trojan horse. Rani Rashmoni .... who?!!!

If Raman's story could be told (not just his scientific achievements), he comes the closest. A hero of mine. 

 

Shivaji is far and away the brighest star of the last millennium for hindus. 

And thats the qualifier. No hindu is going to stand up on the global stage. It is simply about who left the longest lasting impression for us only. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by surajmal

[Muloghonto]

28 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Crap. Field of candidates leaves a lot to be desired and perhaps that is why it is easy to over look him. But consider this, India was right in the middle of its dark ages with no hope in sight, fighting jihadis on one side and holding off the goras on the others. Shivaji put up a better fight than anyone one before or after him. Its not his fault, Hindu polity had decayed to the extent it did and that he couldn't see his objectives through. I look at him as a separate entity from the Marathas. 

 

Gandhi was a manchurian candidate. Less said about him the better. 

 

16 minutes ago, surajmal said:

ROFL wat? First 4 are politicians whose influence is limited to a period of 30 years. Tagore is a poet. thats it. I know Bongs have a habit of talking about cultural renaissance and what not. Thats like being the least worst of the group. You people didn't have much competition. Ramanujan was a theoretical mathematician... wont impact 99.9 percent of the population. Mahalanobis isn't known to anyone outside of people holding stats degrees. 

Roy was a trojan horse. Rani Rashmoni .... who?!!!

If Raman's story could be told (not just his scientific achievements), he comes the closest. A hero of mine. 

 

Shivaji is far and away the brighest star of the last millennium for hindus. 

And thats the qualifier. No hindu is going to stand up on the global stage. It is simply about who left the longest lasting impression for us only. 

 

1. Interesting you see Shivaji as separate from the Marathas and i don't see it as his fault that hindu polity had decayed so badly that it was worse off in 1700s than in the 500s. But it still doesnt change the fact that he was just looking out for personal glory and personal fief, not for the nation or people or anything of that sort. Thats my biggest beef with him - not much done in terms of creating a nation or political system that would survive. What he did, is pretty much every conqueror of did of that century without much in the form of statecraft. Granted, he didnt have much time to consolidate. And thats the same argument used by Alexander aggrandizers too. but it doesnt change the fact that all he did was stir rebellion, weaken the Mughals, left behind a political mess and lands that were depleted of resources instead of strengthening.

 

2. I don't see whats so Trojan-Horsey about Roy. He got rid of Sati. That alone, is worth whatever else happened.

And in a way its a good thing he propagated English culture amongst us, for it helped negate some ills of Hindu culture but above all, put it firmly in the path of liberal individualism with collectivist nationalism as its core ethos. In cultural, techological & ethical terms, i see westernization as a net gain for India, what it lost was individual & collective wealth & stunted economy as its net loss.

 

3. I do consider those people greater than Shivaji, simply because they did more to advance the cause of India and Indians more than Shivaji did. You say Ramanujan's math didn't affect many. Sure. Mahalanobis's did actually, even if only a few statisticians know of him, his methodology have directly impacted us in the form of central planning measures. And all these people have a bigger positive gain towards India than Shivaji. Who, IMO did nothing except weaken the Mughals politically. It didnt change the islamization of Indians in parts it was already happening (Bengal, Hyderabad, Oudh, etc) and it didnt make much difference towards the future conquests of the British. 

 

4. If you mean to give credit to Shivaji for starting the 'revolution' against Muslim overlords, yes i grant you that he started it. But he wasn't the first either. Hemu did it 200 or so years before him. He was more successful than Hemu for sure and it can be argued that he gave hope to Hindus that they could compete against the Muslims and win. But i think in hindsight, it was all for naught, for HIndu or Muslim, India would've fallen to the Europeans one way or another.

 

 

[surajmal]

41 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

1. Interesting you see Shivaji as separate from the Marathas and i don't see it as his fault that hindu polity had decayed so badly that it was worse off in 1700s than in the 500s. But it still doesnt change the fact that he was just looking out for personal glory and personal fief, not for the nation or people or anything of that sort. Thats my biggest beef with him - not much done in terms of creating a nation or political system that would survive. What he did, is pretty much every conqueror of did of that century without much in the form of statecraft. Granted, he didnt have much time to consolidate. And thats the same argument used by Alexander aggrandizers too. but it doesnt change the fact that all he did was stir rebellion, weaken the Mughals, left behind a political mess and lands that were depleted of resources instead of strengthening.

 

 

You trivilializing something doesnt make it so. He was singularly responsible for the demise of biggest jihadi empire on the planet. 

Quote

 

2. I don't see whats so Trojan-Horsey about Roy. He got rid of Sati. That alone, is worth whatever else happened.

And in a way its a good thing he propagated English culture amongst us, for it helped negate some ills of Hindu culture but above all, put it firmly in the path of liberal individualism with collectivist nationalism as its core ethos. In cultural, techological & ethical terms, i see westernization as a net gain for India, what it lost was individual & collective wealth & stunted economy as its net loss.

 

Separate topic. Sati is a blot but the practive would have died anyways with jihadis losing power. 

Quote

3. I do consider those people greater than Shivaji, simply because they did more to advance the cause of India and Indians more than Shivaji did. You say Ramanujan's math didn't affect many. Sure. Mahalanobis's did actually, even if only a few statisticians know of him, his methodology have directly impacted us in the form of central planning measures. And all these people have a bigger positive gain towards India than Shivaji. Who, IMO did nothing except weaken the Mughals politically. It didnt change the islamization of Indians in parts it was already happening (Bengal, Hyderabad, Oudh, etc) and it didnt make much difference towards the future conquests of the British. 

Some impact that was. If he didn't do the math, someone else would have. 

Quote

4. If you mean to give credit to Shivaji for starting the 'revolution' against Muslim overlords, yes i grant you that he started it. But he wasn't the first either. Hemu did it 200 or so years before him. He was more successful than Hemu for sure and it can be argued that he gave hope to Hindus that they could compete against the Muslims and win. But i think in hindsight, it was all for naught, for HIndu or Muslim, India would've fallen to the Europeans one way or another.

Thats why, I choose Shivaji. His story will be told 2000 yrs from now. Rest will be footnotes. 

[Muloghonto]

I will contests that he was singularly responsible for destroying the empire. He weakened it, yes. But the demise of the Mughals were beyond Shivaji- it largely came down to Aurangzeb living too long and leaving behind several weakling successors who could not consolidate. That was essentially the difference between what Shivaji did to Aurangzeb versus what Sher Shah did to Humayun: The former left behind a divided house & several weak & competing factions for the crown, which couldn't recover from the damage dealt by Shivaji , the latter recovered because he left behind a strong & clear line of succession which was ably handled. 

 

In either case, it doesnt matter that Shivaji weakened the Mughals. If he didn't do it, the British would do it anyways. Instead of fighting the Marathas and crushing them in the late 1700s, the Brits would've crushed the Mughals instead. So i don't see what Shivaji did that fundamentally altered India or Indian fate. Its not like he pulled a Nurhaci (Manchu emperor) and united the country under one strong leadership, big enough to resist outright annexation by the western powers.

 

[vvvslaxman]

On 12/24/2016 at 11:56 AM, velu said:

someone proposed to build a statue for Dhoni in chennai

 

Nayanthara statue like in soodhu kavvum lol

[Vilander]

Pro : Hindu warrior king = awesome burn for liberals and padosis.

 

Cons: maratha( the myriad casts that went into it) and by extension maharastrian jingoism.

 

 

 

Budget should come from Maharashtra.

 

Tn can build a Raja Raja statue arnt they building a kannagi statue somewhere ?

 

build Hindu demi god relic status all over. stamp it...build a rani lakshmi bhai somehwere...like really big ones. 

 

 

[Vilander]

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I will contests that he was singularly responsible for destroying the empire. He weakened it, yes. But the demise of the Mughals were beyond Shivaji- it largely came down to Aurangzeb living too long and leaving behind several weakling successors who could not consolidate. That was essentially the difference between what Shivaji did to Aurangzeb versus what Sher Shah did to Humayun: The former left behind a divided house & several weak & competing factions for the crown, which couldn't recover from the damage dealt by Shivaji , the latter recovered because he left behind a strong & clear line of succession which was ably handled. 

 

In either case, it doesnt matter that Shivaji weakened the Mughals. If he didn't do it, the British would do it anyways. Instead of fighting the Marathas and crushing them in the late 1700s, the Brits would've crushed the Mughals instead. So i don't see what Shivaji did that fundamentally altered India or Indian fate. Its not like he pulled a Nurhaci (Manchu emperor) and united the country under one strong leadership, big enough to resist outright annexation by the western powers.

 

he is Hindu and fought against muslim invaders good enough for bjp.

[Vilander]

also start inventing epic stories about Shivaji and eventually make him look like he was a super dooper great emperor -- #nationbuilding

[fineleg]

On 12/24/2016 at 9:56 AM, velu said:

someone proposed to build a statue for Dhoni in chennai

 

Lets add a button to it. Press the button, and it will say "we are playing unchanged 11", and other Dhoni "process" statements.