Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content count

    6,205
  • Runs

    79,800 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    50d 16h 50m 22s

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Gollum in Tennis :2017 season   
    Federer has finally figured out Nadal.
    It has fundamentally changed Federer's game from his peak years (which i think is from 04-07) and though i think peak Federer is still the better Federer, THIS Federer, is a better Nadal killer.

    His movement has diminished noticeably from the past, but his unbelievable ability to take a ball anywhere on the court on the half-volley has covered the expected huge drop-off in tennis performance when a player's movement becomes slower.
    His first serve is more potent, as he can 'aim' more, due to the 'easier power' of the bigger racket. 
    This has also completely changed his backhand, where he can now blow holes on the court, with regularity, with the backhand.

    The bigger racket has caused one noted drop in his game: his forehand is no longer the unbeatable weapon it was once before. His forehand is now significantly weaker but he still retains his amazing accuracy with it, so he can still paint lines with it. 

    However, the new Federer is more vulnerable to someone who can play a consistent game and can dominate his forehand. Aka Del Potro. But it matters not, because there are no good players who have a truly great forehand currently-except the unluckiest tennis player who's ever lived, DelPo.  Djokovic is a pusher, so is Murray and Nadal and Nadal's forehand is no longer the iron-precise and fails often. Rest who have good forehands (Raonic for e.g.) have other holes in their games that Federer pounces on and exposes them.
     
  2. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from GoldenSun in Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.   
    How is it a wrong scale, since they too, are men sitting around thinking about what was 'told' to them by their ancestors before writing it down. When Sanjaya is describing the world, he is doing a bloody poor job compared to that of an actual map of the world, for eg. Ergo, he knew less of the world(Valmiki). So why is that a wrong scale ?!
     
    If someone is telling me to live my life a certain way, i would want facts from him/her. Facts about phenomenal universe why so, not just empty claims of 'God told me'. I have no way of knowing if thats a lie or truth, which means, its not a factual observation to begin with. 
    So then we are left with, what they understood of this universe. And they understood a lot less than you or I do. 

    How can people less educated than me, come up with more complicated facts than me ? They can think any fantasy they want- that i won't deny. They can dream all they want about a God story. Doesn't make it fact or real. So what is so 'complicated' to understand in the so-called scriptures, tell me ? Can you quote me a single part of the passage from any scripture, where 'humans today have not understood any of the meaning of the sentence' ? 
     
     I have no way of knowing they were saying the truth, if there is no evidence of what they claim. As i said, if i am to 'wait for evidence that they are wrong', then logically, i am left with no alternative but to accept EVERYTHING i hear as true. Because everything, theoretically, can be true, if you do not know the entire universe. Since you do not know what else is in the universe, you must also accept any idea- because that idea can be true in an incomplete set. To say 'i searched, i didnt find any proof anywhere, there is nowhere else to look', is impossible with ANY fantasy claim. 
    To demonstrate, i will say, whatever you say about God, just change the word to 'Superman/Batman/Thanos' and it is just exactly the same idea. Only difference, less people follow it, less rigidly. 
     
    The reason its not easy to digest, is the same reason almost every religious book is not easy to digest- if it were so easy to digest, the fraud of their claim (that they are saying its God but can present no evidence of utter perfection of anything to demonstrate its from God), will be laid bare.
     
    First, Mahabharata is not written by Krishna. Its by Valmiki. He is the source we have. Krishna's hand didn't write the prose. Valmiki's did.  Second, why would he tell me- oh i don't know- the best and most obvious way to demonstrate 'knowledge beyond your capability, that still won't make sense' is to show such knowledge. If i wanted to show a primitive amazonian I know way more than him, I'd simply prove it by leaving a math theorem that I know they will eventually crack but not for a thousand years maybe. 
     
    Thats why. Obvious, implicit proof of divinity, is lacking. But claim is made, all over the place. 

    You want ego-less life, well there are plenty of Buddhist and Jain ego-less monks too out there, who reject all the Gods of hinduism, so God is not necessary for ego-less life, i may add. To not believe in God, is not to be an egotist, that is the classic Abrahamic (Muslim/Jew/Christian) ploy. But as Indians, we should know better than to accuse atheists as egotistic. Because there ARE plenty of Buddhist sects and Jains too (even if they are minority), who still maintain their staunch atheism. 
     
     
    Your ancestors were not a lot wiser, they were a lot less overstimulated than you were. 
    thats the key difference. we are getting smarter and more educated as a species. No question. But with modernity, we are also getting over-stimulated and our entire lives revolve more and more around new, wonderful experiences. Our ancestors were a lot more black and white, because their lives were a lot more black and white. They had to live by a much narrower path or they died. Less secure world, way more disease related deaths, way more war related deaths, way more capital crimes, etc etc. Since you like the Gods so much, let me make an example for you: 
    To compare Valmiki to us, is to actually compare Valmiki to Indra. Like Indra, our average guy today, knows more about everything than Valmiki- including, religion. We have millions and millions of people who have working knowledge of atleast half a dozen religions today, including Hinduism. Like Indra, we understand technology that we cannot explain to Valmiki in 2 minutes, like Indra, we have power and knowledge un-imaginable. But like Indra, we are not perfect and have our own set of 'godly problems' that may just be the end of us. 
     
    And lastly, of course not- i am not discounting the baseline.Which is why i have taken care to call them people with inferior knowledge/less knowledge than grade 8 kids and not 'stupider, less smart/dumber people'. Because I have no problem accepting that Aryabhatta, the man, was 100 times smarter than me. But i know 1000 times more than him, is my point.  Baseline is reality. 

    Fair or unfair, reality is, you know more about this universe, what works and what doesn't, than guys 2000 years ago did.
  3. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from GoldenSun in Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.   
    1. Why ? because most Indians are ignorant of history, thats why. Most Indians know jack-$hit about Kanauj triangle or Chola-Chalukya ravages. 
    2. Saying you are more evolved, doesn't make you so. 
    3. I am not saying only atheist can be liberal. I am saying an atheist liberal has more integrity than a religious liberal, because an atheist liberal is doing it, because its right. A theist does it, because there is risk-reward to their ideology for it. 
    4. I am yet to meet an atheist, who discards 'knowledge'.What they do discard, is books written by men who knew less of the universe, than grade 8 kids do today, when those books tell us how to live our lives. Do you take life lessons from a 5 year old ? No ? Why ? Because they lack knowledge (not because they are dumb. Nobody follows a super-intelligent 5 year old either). Same applies to those who wrote those religious books. They are ignorant, with knowledge level of today's children. So why should we listen to them ??
     
    1. I have no need to search for said answers of God. Searching for God is as valid as searching for the Avengers. Are you searching for the avengers ? for Tony Stark ? no ? God has exactly that much relevance to us. God does not interact with me directly- there is nothing about God that comes from outside human source. And its always been used for social control, so i see the need to invent God (social control), but no need for God to actually exist. Either way, 'why we are here' is not an ultimatey relevant question to 'what to do once we are here'. 
     
    2. Your analogy assumes there is a God. Atheists are not 'all religions are wrong, true God got a bad rep', atheists are like 'i see no reason to believe in God in the first place'. 
     
    3. Yes, it can be empirically proven, that those who wrote the Mahabharata/Ramayana/Koran/Bible knew less of this universe than grade 8 kids do. Grade 8 kids today know the difference between virus and bacteria. They know of Neptune and Pluto. They know of black holes. All of these facts are not known to those with inferior knowledge thousands of years ago, who wrote those books.
    Valmiki, Mohammed- we are a thousand times more knowledgable than them- Forget religious preachers, any high school graduate with good grades know more than Aryabhatta did. Any grade 12 biology pass knows more than Sushruta ever did. 

    Its not an empty claim, that those of 1000-1500+ years ago, knew less than our children do today. The most knowledgable man 1000 years ago, knew less- about everything- than a 18 year old high-school graduate does with As. It is empirically verifiable.  I won't claim to be smarter than Issac Newton. But i know way, way more math than that guy. I knew more than Aryabatta when i was in grade 10. Every kid who got As in GCSE/ICSE/CBSE grade 10 math, knows more math than Aryabhatta ever did. These are all empirically verifiable.
     
    So explain to me, why does a man who knows far less about the universe than me, gets to tell me how to live my life in this universe. 
  4. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Gollum in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
     I will clarify what i mean, when in earlier posts, i called Rajputs to be brave and now i call them cowards.
     
    Rajputs were extremely brave and resolute people, militaristically. If we consider the Pratiharas as Rajputs, we can see, that from early on, the Pratiharas are quite organized on the battlefield, with excellent military discipline and were one of the very, very few medieval cultures, that knew the art of orderly retreats. Countless examples exist, from Rashtrakuta records for e.g., which show,that the Rajputs were known to not just tuck tail and run away, when the battle got hard.
     
    Most medeival armies suffered catastrophic losses, usually when the presiding king/general gets slain. To fight orderly battles, even if your supreme commander takes a stray arrow in the face and dies in front of you, is a trait we only see amongst the Romans of the ancient world, in a consistent basis. In medieval times, i can't be sure, but i rate the Rajput ability to fight the odds on the battlefield, as well as the propensity to withdraw in good order when all is lost, to be remarkable by world standards. 
     
    Even our most hated oppressors have mentioned this. Babur for e.g., flat out dismisses the Rajput battle tactics, as out-dated and moronic, but was more impressed with the Rajput than his own troops, for discipline. Rajputs breaking and running away on the battlefield is one of the rarest occurrences. Yes, they did Fack-up orderly retreats, but orderly retreats when your commander is dead, is not a perfect science in the first place. No society over long period does it well and usually the 'remarkable slaughter' is after the army breaks, tries to run away and fails in the chaos.
     
    However, a society can be both cowardly in its ethos and brave at the same time - medeival Rajputs are a testament to this. On one hand, fighting them was like fighting the Honey Badger (for those who don't know this creature- look it up, even Lions know better than fight a honey badger usually). On the other, their practices like Jauhar are as abhorrable as Sati. People killing their own children so their way of thinking does not change. 
     
    It is a heinous crime against humanity, against your own kin, to kill them- when they themselves pose no threat to other people individually and directly,because their thinking or status changed. They are gonna get raped, enslaved, fed 2 rotis a day and beaten ? well, thats horrible. Obviously no one should condone this and prepare to fight for this. But killing ones own child, one's own kin - i am sorry, but if there is any fundamental directive of species homo sapiens, its the fundamental objective of all noted species : to survive. To kill your child, is to fundamentally fail as a human being, as a parent, for a fate no-matter how bad, i would want people to survive it at the very least and live. If they wish to end their own lives to end the misery, that is completely their own right ( i support euthenesia) but they should make that right. You don't get to kill a child (unless a child has done something so horrible that the threat to society from said child is unjustified). That is the main objection i have to the Rajput culture : its a death cult, that fundamentally has failed to achieve its objectives historically and on top, glorifies killing babies and immolating the old and the sick, so they don't 'lose honour'. 
     
    I will also point out, that Rajputs are not the big-daddies of 'honour based death-cult behaviour, for warrior or warrior caste' . They are a heavyweight in this whole 'honour' business,no doubt. But there is only one, ultimate, all-time champion on honour based culture, where every single concept of honour is held to very high standards of cultural requirement.

    That honour would go to pre 1945 Japan & Bushido culture. People killed themselves due to stupidly high 'honour infringement' - i killed your boss, aka you failed to protect your liege lord - too bad, you were taking a dump at that moment/busy fighting off 4 other guys trying to kill him-he died. On your watch. If you want honour and not be branded a POS brigand outlaw, go to the courtyard and open your stomach with your own sword and not make a sound please. This was so commonplace that Bushido tradition even had a system for WHERE you should go execute yourself the most painful way imaginable ( cutting through your belly and entrails, spleen to liver). Welcome to Samurai culture. The 'Rajput-fans' amongst us, if they really care so much about honor, should pick up a book on medical Japanese culture an give it a read. They would love it, if they actually value honour above everything else. 
     
  5. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Book_Worm in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    Hate ? You really think i 'hate' long dead people who have 0% influence on my life ? Thats laughable.
     
    To wish death before dishonour, means you love honour more than the person. Simple logic. Yes, i know its a different culture, but such cowardliness needs to be called out for what it is.
     
    There are zero coins, inscriptions, etc. of Bappa Rawal. Bappa-Rawal is not history, its mythology & folklore. Like Robin hood. 
     
    Yes, but there is also a religious component to this. Pratiharas were Hindus. Pals were Buddhists. Rashtrakutas were Jains. You really want to focus on how these religions backstabbed each other, in India, to hand over India on a plate, to the outsider, in a country with so low literacy ? Bad idea.
    But as i said, the MAIN reason, why that period of history is consigned to university level and not high school is because its quite complicated and too vast, with also a lot of unanswered questions in it.
     
    They are dead people. With 0% influence on our current lives. If we can't talk honestly about that kind of a topic, then we can't expect honesty in ANY topic. 
    Thats the whole point - i don't consider Rajputs chivalrous. Those who commit suicide, are not chivalrous, they are cowards. Infact, suicide in modern medicine is most commonly linked to depression, not valour.
     
    Nobody denied that after the Pals, Bengal is a big fat zero in anything political or military, until the arrival of the British. But hey, give me Bengalis or Biharis or UP-ites who converted and lived to tell the tale, than cowards who killed themselves and burnt their women and children for some fanciful notion of honour over survival. 
    Those who value murder and suicide over survival, simply have no place in being glorified for their struggle.
     
    I consider Rajputs as murderer of children - their own. I am sorry, but you don't get to glorify child murder. Just as you don't get to glorify genocide, rape, loot, etc. I can clearly tell, you are not a parent. Because if you were a parent who loves their kid no matter what, you'd wish your child to be a sex slave over being dead. These kind of harmful and lowly values need to be weeded out of Indian cultures -including the Rajputs- than glorified.
     
    PS: following rules of dharma in battle is a common myth propagated by Rajput communities to explain their laughable failures. There is plenty of evidence that Rajputs conducted night warfare, conducted raids, etc. As they should. A Warrior's job is to win a war by killing his enemy combatants. I don't care if he does it via poison, at night, by flooding the camp, by trampling them under elephants.Get. the. job. done. Rajputs failed and then invented ludicrous stories of 'dharmic warfare'. Nobody practiced 'dharmic warfare' because Dharmic warfare is an oxymoron. 
  6. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Gollum in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    Sure we are. Army of savages went a lot other places too, in the same timeframe. The spaniards, the Georgians, the Byzantine women - they are all more respectable than the Rajput woman. because they chose to live and struggle, than a quick death. I am also not judging modern Rajputs. Just their cowardly ancestors. There is no honour, no glory, in suicide. None. zero. 
     
    If your wife was in the same position as the Rajput women, i HOPE you wish her to live through the rape, abuse and slavery- in the faint hope that ONE DAY she can be free, instead of killing herself to preserve her purity. 
    I know I do !
     
  7. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Gollum in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    1. Palas were not Rajputs. There were also no Guhilots in the 8th century. There were Pratiharas. 
     
    2. Nobody takes about the 700 AD -1100 AD period in Indian history because : a) Its the period of Kannauj triangle and is extremely complicated. and 2) It becomes crystal clear that those years are the reason Turkic-Afghans broke through in the first place, because Indians were way too busy killing each other and destroying each other in a 400 year near-continuous war.  c) it also brings up a lot of inconvenient truths about Indians collaborating with the Arabs and the turks, against their own, for power. Rashtrakutas supported the Arabs in Sindh vs Rajputs. Why ? because the Pratiharas, who were originally vassals of the Chalukyas that Rashtrakutas displaced, struggled against them. Rajputs were A-ok with Bin Qasim, so long as he made sure Paramaras were also destroyed (which he couldn't). 
     
    3. It is very offensive to 'respect' cowards who chose death over 'live and fight another day'. I'd rather live with my beliefs being oppressed, than die for them. Because if i die, my beliefs die with me, automatically.If i live, i get to propagate my beliefs- even if its under-cover. This is how the Jews survived the Roman empire ban on Judaism, also Seleucid ban on Judaism. The problem i have, is with depicting Rajputs as brave. They were anything but brave. If Rajputs are brave, so is a suicide bomber. Because those who chose a quick death, especially over belief systems, than survival and struggling to preserve their heritage, are not brave. They are the definition of haughty cowards who throw away their lives in a meaningless manner. That is the problem i have with Rajput depiction in history and media : cowardly, abhorrable behaviour being glorified as bravery.
     
  8. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Gollum in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    There is nothing to understand. Muslims invaded and raped and pillaged elsewhere too. Did the Byzantine women immolate themselves ? Did the Spaniards immolate themselves ? What about the African slave trade- both by the muslims and the Europeans- did the African women immolate themselves ?
    No. 
    Because they were stronger women and stronger people than the Rajputs. 
    Indian women do take great pride in being pure- so do women from most other cultures. But those who take purity over survival, are cowards, who lack the wherewithal to survive. 
    I am not judging them by the modern standards, i am judging them by their own. People who go for a sure-fire suicide mission and their women/children immolate themselves, they are not brave - because they lack the bravery to survive in face of tremendous odds, odds others have beaten. 
    They are an example of 'what NOT to do'.
     
  9. Haha
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Georgejed in Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.   
    That is because secularism, according to Indian constitution, is equal pandering to all religion, not removal of religion from government workings.
    hence the meddling. 
  10. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Book_Worm in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    Hate ? You really think i 'hate' long dead people who have 0% influence on my life ? Thats laughable.
     
    To wish death before dishonour, means you love honour more than the person. Simple logic. Yes, i know its a different culture, but such cowardliness needs to be called out for what it is.
     
    There are zero coins, inscriptions, etc. of Bappa Rawal. Bappa-Rawal is not history, its mythology & folklore. Like Robin hood. 
     
    Yes, but there is also a religious component to this. Pratiharas were Hindus. Pals were Buddhists. Rashtrakutas were Jains. You really want to focus on how these religions backstabbed each other, in India, to hand over India on a plate, to the outsider, in a country with so low literacy ? Bad idea.
    But as i said, the MAIN reason, why that period of history is consigned to university level and not high school is because its quite complicated and too vast, with also a lot of unanswered questions in it.
     
    They are dead people. With 0% influence on our current lives. If we can't talk honestly about that kind of a topic, then we can't expect honesty in ANY topic. 
    Thats the whole point - i don't consider Rajputs chivalrous. Those who commit suicide, are not chivalrous, they are cowards. Infact, suicide in modern medicine is most commonly linked to depression, not valour.
     
    Nobody denied that after the Pals, Bengal is a big fat zero in anything political or military, until the arrival of the British. But hey, give me Bengalis or Biharis or UP-ites who converted and lived to tell the tale, than cowards who killed themselves and burnt their women and children for some fanciful notion of honour over survival. 
    Those who value murder and suicide over survival, simply have no place in being glorified for their struggle.
     
    I consider Rajputs as murderer of children - their own. I am sorry, but you don't get to glorify child murder. Just as you don't get to glorify genocide, rape, loot, etc. I can clearly tell, you are not a parent. Because if you were a parent who loves their kid no matter what, you'd wish your child to be a sex slave over being dead. These kind of harmful and lowly values need to be weeded out of Indian cultures -including the Rajputs- than glorified.
     
    PS: following rules of dharma in battle is a common myth propagated by Rajput communities to explain their laughable failures. There is plenty of evidence that Rajputs conducted night warfare, conducted raids, etc. As they should. A Warrior's job is to win a war by killing his enemy combatants. I don't care if he does it via poison, at night, by flooding the camp, by trampling them under elephants.Get. the. job. done. Rajputs failed and then invented ludicrous stories of 'dharmic warfare'. Nobody practiced 'dharmic warfare' because Dharmic warfare is an oxymoron. 
  11. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from BeautifulGame in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    ^^
    Though i agree the Marathas were far superior in statecraft to the Rajputs, even they suffered from the critical flaw of confederacy.
    It becomes apparent that the reason Marathas came close to being a great power and failed are two fold:
     
    1. Like rajputs, they could not devise a successful, long term plan of imperialism, they fractured in Scindhias, Bhonsales and such, with the Peshwa running to the Brits and selling off the future of the Maratha empire, just to protect himself against the other major clans !! They were not as bad as rajputs, but their confederate nature was fully exploited by the British
     
    2. Marathas came to power as a guerrilla army. By guerrilla warfare, they brought a major world power (Mughal Empire) to its knees. And then it became, for a 30-50 year period, a major world power. But they forgot, that they are no longer guerrilla rebels, its THEY who are the empire. And as such, failed to reform their military system. The Pindaris work great, when you are raiding a state power and inflicting 'death by a thousand cuts, will run away when you try to challenge me, until i meet you on MY terms'. But what the heck do Pindaris do when THEY are the state power, when THEY have to protect their domain and fight pitched battles ? Be useless and die. 

    That is not to say, India didn't have good statecraft polities. Vijayanagara was our last, non-muslim polity who had a clear plan, were united, had great long term picture, etc. So were the Cholas, Palas, Rashtrakutas, Guptas and the Magadh dynasties. 
     
    but the people who get all the limelight today- Rajputs and the Marathas - they were an embarrassment for the big picture in the long term. Rajputs more so than Marathas. 
  12. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Rightarmfast in Combined Indo Pak All Time ODI Team   
    And Azhar over both of them. Scored at a faster rate, was one of the best and earliest subcontinental guy to be good at 'rotating strikes and stealing singles' and still one of the best all-round fielders from the Indian subcontinent ( i rate Azhar's fielding higher than Virat's - not as flashy with ground fielding, but an amazing chaser of the ball and way, way safer hands than Virat anywhere in the field). 
     
  13. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Rightarmfast in Combined Indo Pak All Time ODI Team   
    Sachin
    Veeru
    Kohli
    Azhar
    Dhoni +
    Yuvraj
    Kapil Dev (c)
    Akram
    Kumble
    Waqar
    Saqlain
     
  14. Upvote
    Muloghonto reacted to express bowling in Combined Indo Pak All Time ODI Team   
    Running between the wickets and fielding go against Inzy
  15. Upvote
    Muloghonto reacted to vayuu1 in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    But he was a shyte person.

    Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

  16. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from BeautifulGame in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    ^^
    Though i agree the Marathas were far superior in statecraft to the Rajputs, even they suffered from the critical flaw of confederacy.
    It becomes apparent that the reason Marathas came close to being a great power and failed are two fold:
     
    1. Like rajputs, they could not devise a successful, long term plan of imperialism, they fractured in Scindhias, Bhonsales and such, with the Peshwa running to the Brits and selling off the future of the Maratha empire, just to protect himself against the other major clans !! They were not as bad as rajputs, but their confederate nature was fully exploited by the British
     
    2. Marathas came to power as a guerrilla army. By guerrilla warfare, they brought a major world power (Mughal Empire) to its knees. And then it became, for a 30-50 year period, a major world power. But they forgot, that they are no longer guerrilla rebels, its THEY who are the empire. And as such, failed to reform their military system. The Pindaris work great, when you are raiding a state power and inflicting 'death by a thousand cuts, will run away when you try to challenge me, until i meet you on MY terms'. But what the heck do Pindaris do when THEY are the state power, when THEY have to protect their domain and fight pitched battles ? Be useless and die. 

    That is not to say, India didn't have good statecraft polities. Vijayanagara was our last, non-muslim polity who had a clear plan, were united, had great long term picture, etc. So were the Cholas, Palas, Rashtrakutas, Guptas and the Magadh dynasties. 
     
    but the people who get all the limelight today- Rajputs and the Marathas - they were an embarrassment for the big picture in the long term. Rajputs more so than Marathas. 
  17. Upvote
    Muloghonto reacted to vayuu1 in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    I know that.

    Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

  18. Troll
    Muloghonto got a reaction from express bowling in Thommo - how quick was he?'   
    None of that changes the fact that you are talking out of your rear end when you say you can tell who is faster and who is slower from TV. 
    Like i said, don't make me get out my formulas for you, because then the embarrassment would be total. This is not just physics, this is simple image mapping that is used ALL THE TIME by video softwares. 

    Your and Rkt's egotistic BS will not go unchallenged.
     
  19. Upvote
    Muloghonto reacted to Trichromatic in Thommo - how quick was he?'   
    If batsmen were shown speeds after each delivery, then they will definitely tell better than viewers which bowlers are bowling 90mph and which one 95 mph
     
  20. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Gollum in Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread   
    1. The Bolan and Gomal pass didn't really matter for invasion routes, as most invaders came through the Khyber. Only two invaders came from the Bolan/Gomal pass : The Arabs ( Bin Qasim) and the Scythians ( Northern & Western Kshatrapas) . 
     
    2. Bolan and Gomal pass are also very difficult to hold from India, because :
     a) Unlike the Khyber, the Bolan and Gomal are west of Indus after Indus widens significantly, this makes crossing the Indus back and forth opposite of Bolan or Gomal pass, virtually impossible. On the other hand, Indus is narrow around Attock and the traditional crossing point. 
    b) The Gomal and Bolan pass are in the Suleiman range, a region that has been mostly lawless, for most of its history. Nobody controlled these areas directly, not even the Mughals or Nader Shah. 
     
    3. Indian empires that are based out of the north, tend to get mired with Deccan empires/kingdoms as they get big, because of two reasons: a) Deccan kingdoms start seeing a mega-empire in the north as a threat vice versa  and b) Northern Empires start seeing the riches of the Deccan as higher priority of conquest than barren but strategic lands in the NW subcontinent. 
     
    I will however, point out, that the two Indian empires that established a lasting hegemony over the north and completely dominated the Deccan - Mauryas and Guptas - did prioritize control of the Khyber. Mauryas definitely concentrated forces in Takshashila, specifically for the Khyber pass and Guptas had their boundary at Takshashila, just miles from Peshawar. Only reason they did not conquer Peshawar and make it directly under their control, is because the Sassanids and Guptas were allies and Sassanids had conquered Peshawar from the Kushans first. However, when Sassanids started to lose control of Peshawar-Kabul region in early 400s AD, under the Chionite expansion, Chandragupta Vikramaditya went ahead and whacked the heck out of the region. 
     
    But except these two empires, no other Northern empire formed a complete hegemony over the north,beyond the lifetime of 1 conqueror, so i'd say it was rarely the case that a Northern empire could extend all the way to the Khyber without getting mired in the south. 
     
    4. The areas immediately beyond Indus were an immense logistical challenge for Indian rulers. Predominantly because of elephants: our warfare was dependent on elephants being the apex war unit but elephants usually need nearly half a tonne of plant matter and 200 litres of water per elephant per day. This, is extremely hard to provide in the barren lands west of the Indus and without competent cavalry, we couldn't face the cavalry based forces based in Afghan regions easily. We could've faced cavalry without their elephants, if India had heavy infantry-like the Romans/Greeks, but India is not where heavy infantry evolved/is the place for it to evolve. 
     
    Panipat I and II are completely justified where they were. I will point out, Panipat is close to where most of the major, historic battles for India have occurred. Tarain is pretty close and the Guptas too, likely fought the Alchon Huns ( Hepthalites who invaded India) in the plains of Punjab, likely between Attock and Delhi.
    This is because of their reliance on war elephants. When you have so many war elephants on the march/fielded, you need two things:
    a) You *MUST* be close to a major water source and 
    b) You should seek a big flat land, where you can unleash your war elephants with full effect. 
     
    We also used chariots until pretty late (Pal Empire was the last empire in the world to use chariots), because in the vast Indo-gangetic plains, which are also very flat, chariots can be a viable option (chariots are useless over broken/hilly ground, hence abandoned very quickly in the middle east, where most wars used to involve fighting in the mountains ringing Iraq, Turkey etc). 
     
    Panipat III was just all-round case of stupids. Marathas should not have fought there but then again in this case, probably the proximity to Delhi played a 'comforting factor' as a fall-back/supply option.
     
  21. Upvote
    Muloghonto reacted to coffee_rules in Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.   
     
    Valmiki wrote Ramayana.
    Mahabharata is written by Maharshi Vyasa muni (The belief is that it was narrated by Vyasa and Lord Ganesha penned it)
  22. Upvote
    Muloghonto reacted to Gollum in Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread   
    Let my elaborate my views about Tipu Sultan because I asked the question in the first place. 
     
    History demands objectivity, one mustn't get very emotional while dealing with any historical subject. What is done is done, simply whining and crying about the past won't change the events. Tipu is a subject which has divided Karnataka right down the middle. Either you worship/adore him or castigate him as the eternal villain of South India, there is no middle ground as far as he is concerned. With elections due next year expect Tipu to be a talking point in the campaign by all sides. Right wing forces are already in the process of spreading fake information and spewing hatred against Muslims rallying behind the atrocities of Tipu. Congress wants to consolidate its Muslim votebank, hence the annual Tipu Jayanti celebrations all across the state, something that has entered the vogue only in the last 3-4 years.
     
    First let me get a few facts out of the way before presenting my views about Tipu the man.
    He was a freedom fighter in the sense that he took up arms against the British and died fighting in battle. Right wing extremists may argue that he did it for his own selfish reasons and not for the country, duh....there was no concept of India the nation at that phase of time. We were a fragmented lot with some rulers accepting British/French/Dutch/Portuguese/Danish (European) paramountcy while others resisted tooth and nail ultimately losing to the superior Europeans in due course of time. If we are to accord the status of freedom fighter to the likes of Rani Laxmibai, Nana Sahib, Tantya Tope, Begum Hazrat Mahal, Kunwar Singh etc we must accord the same status to Tipu Sultan. They all did it for selfish reasons if you look at it from a particular angle but the cold hard truth is that they all resisted the European onslaught paying the ultimate price in the end.  Tipu was a military genius. His use of rocket warfare was the stuff of legends. That the British adopted this technology after Tipu's fall is a testament to Tipu's innovation. The Congreve rocket was a straight imitation of Tipu's rocket and played a pivotal role in the Napoleonic Wars to follow. This is something we must be proud of, in an age where we were left so far behind in science and technology, there was a brown man who was a pioneer in a technology which was subsequently borrowed by the European powerhouses. May be after the Gupta empire this was the first instance of a desi actually inventing something ( correct me I am wrong and missing something @Muloghonto @rahulrulezz because I am under the impression that we lost our scientific edge after the fall of the Guptas). If you have read 'Wings of Fire' by our beloved late President Dr Kalam, he mentions that NASA's head office has a picture of Tipu Sultan with his rockets and that is something which made him proud. Indeed it should make each of us proud. Tipu was one of the few Indian rulers with multiple victories against the British (Pollilur, Kumbakonam, Chidambaram), some of them crushing victories. The 2nd Anglo Mysore war can be described as a victory for Mysore and the subsequent Treaty of Mangalore was the last British Indian treaty with the Indian ruler having a more favorable footing. Of course if you delve deeper you will see that the 2nd Anglo Mysore war and 1st Anglo Maratha wars overlapped, meaning the Company was fighting a 2 front war for over 2 years, a blunder on their part. This was also the last time they would be making this mistake (2 front war in Indian SC), they never repeated their mistakes and this is what made them so hard to beat.  Tipu was a cruel man. He did convert/kill many Hindus and Christians in South India and I am not going to deny these facts. There is ample proof of these happenings and it will be intellectual dishonesty on my part to blatantly deny his despotic mannerisms against non Muslims in certain areas.  Now coming to my analysis of Tipu the man, let me try to break down his decisions and explain why did what he did and why he is a much more complicated character and simply portraying him as black or white without shades of grey is doing disservice to history.
    Forceful conversions in Malabar- This is something we hear all the time. Tipu converted thousands, may be lakhs of Nairs and other lower castes to Islam. Yes there were large scale conversions of Nairs to Islam. But let me break it down. Kerala at that point of time was a very rigid society, caste rules were very strict and lower castes were treated like scum. Namboothiri/Nambudiri Brahmins were pakka Brahman supremacists and all the lower castes were treated very badly, even Kshatriyas were slaves of these Brahmins. By custom, only the eldest Namboothiri son could marry, other sons couldn't. They could have relations with Nair women. So what happened was that Nair women were confined in a residential area and the Namboothiri men would come at nightfall and * multiple Nair women, kind of like prostitution. Nair women were held in those places against their will, they couldn't come out of their trapped lives, reduced to the status of prostitutes forced to service the highest caste men. The bastard children conceived from these acts wouldn't get the caste of their fathers, they were relegated to the status of their mothers and hence left as outcast bastards. Thus the Nairs were a matrilineal society (only other matrilineal societies in Indian SC back then were in Nagaland and Manipur), at the mercy of the Brahmins all the time. Tipu came to Malabar coast because the Namboothiri Diwan of Travancore had invaded Cochin, which was under Mysore's protection at that time. As such Tipu was pissed off at the Namboothiris and when he saw the plight of Nair women on his way, he offered them a way out of their misery. I am not saying that there was no forceful conversion there, but isn't it possible that many Nairs converted to Islam to escape the hegemony of Namnoothiris in Kerala?  You all must be familiar with the breast tax on lower caste women in Kerala imposed by the Brahmins. Lower caste women had to pay taxes if they wanted to cover their breasts, being bare chested was a sign of respect to Brahmins in that society. Do read about Nangeli, the Ezhava women who cut off her breasts as a protest against the breast tax system. Tipu when he saw this nonsense ordered all lower caste women to stop paying such a tax and supplied blouses to them. Isn't it possible that in such an oppressive environment the lower castes had had enough and willfully converted to Islam? Tipu hated Brits and liked the French. Napolean himself sought an alliance with Tipu to face the common enemy. Tipu was a member of the extremist club of the French Revolution, the Jacobin Club. He also planted a Liberty Tree in Mysore and rechristened himself as Citizen Tipu. He was a perennial ally of the French in India, because he was enamored  by the ideas propagated by French Revolution. Bear in mind that in that period, America had just won its freedom. The American Revolution was over in 1783 and the treaty of Paris was signed during the middle of the 2nd Anglo Mysore War. Who supported the American Patriots in the colonial revolt? FRANCE. Who was supporting Tipu in his revolt? FRANCE. Indeed France was the key link in both cases. The Brits had lost America because of France and their only true remaining rival in India was again being supported by the same country. More reason for the Brits to be wary. There is a reason why British historians went out of their way to portray Tipu as a tyrant whilst glorifying the Company forces as liberators. The divide and rule policy of Brits involved fabricating many lies about Tipu's atrocities against the Hindus to get the Marathas on their side. No Indian ruler was vilified by the British historians more than the Tiger of Mysore. It is no surprise that they rolled out their best commanders to take out Tipu. Charles Cornwallis the British hero in the Great American Revolution was called up to lead the Company forces in the 3rd Anglo Mysore War. Arthur Wellesley led their troops in the 4th Anglo Mysore War , in which Tipu ultimately died. Arthur Wellesley was the Duke of Wellington (capital of NZ is named after him) and the person who defeated Napolean in Waterloo, one of the greatest British heroes. Another French connection, the man who defeated Tipu also defeated Napolean !!!! Tipu was ruthless. Anyone not from his kingdom who crossed his path was dealt with severely. He butchered the Kodavas of Coorg who had successfully irritated Mysore through their guerrilla tactics. He butchered the Mallus, same with Mangalorean Christians who had pledged loyalty to the British. He didn't massacre Christians who were supporting France. He hated Brits and anyone who was against him was shown no mercy. He even massacred many of Nizam's men because they were supporting the Brits. Right wing extremists won't tell you how he tortured Muslim prisoners from the Nizam's camp. That was one of the main reasons why Nizam sent such a huge army in support of the Company in the 4th and final Anglo Mysore War. More than a bigot, I see a ruthless man in Tipu here. His enmity with the Marathas can be gauged from the fact that Mysore was under continuous attack from the Marathas after the 3rd battle of Panipat. Marathas were weakened by that point of time and they didn't want another major power to rise in the South. Hyder Ali was under continuous attack from Madhavrao, there was an invasion every 2-3 years from the Maratha side. But Tipu never really got into a major tiff with them because his mind was preoccupied elsewhere and the Marathas weren't weak like the Kodavus or Namboothiris. Nevertheless they were on opposite sides of the field in the 4th Anglo Mysore War. His treatment of Hindus in the Mysore region was radically different from those outside the region. Marathas were no angels. When they sacked Hindu temples in Mysore including Sringeri, it was rebuilt by Tipu. While he destroyed some temples in the enemy states he built temples in his region. The Sringeri Sharada Preeth, seat of the Sankaracharya was rebuilt from scratch by Tipu after being destroyed to rubble by the Marathas (Marathas have destroyed many temples in Surat and Bengal region also, killing many Hindus in the process, inconvenient truth that many Hindus don't want to admit). Tipu exchanged 100s of letters with the Sringeri Sankaracharya , he even wore a ring bearing the name 'Ram' in his final battle, it was gifted to him by Sringeri Sankaracharya. He made liberal endowments to many temples in Mysore and even today the Sringeri mutt honors him on his jayanti. There were many Hindus in his court, his Diwan and Treasurer were both Hindus. My understanding of this is that he was tolerant towards his citizens but ruthless against outsiders, irrespective of religion. He was a cruel man, but difficult to call him a bigot. At worst he can be described as a cunning ruler who knew how to get the support of Hindus in his kingdom in spite of holding a negative opinion about them.  A very interesting character IMO, and may be controversial to some here but I believe he has been treated unfairly by the British historians and modern day Hindutva supporters. 
  23. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Cricketics in Tennis :2017 season   
    @Cricketics
     
     
    You were saying and i chanced across this video on youtube: fantastic hands indeed:
     
     
     
  24. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Gollum in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    PS: Mods, would you guys mind moving all the history-related posts to the history thread ? good to have it all in one place.
     
  25. Upvote
    Muloghonto got a reaction from Gollum in Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh   
    Well because the entire history of Rajputs is one of them fighting each other and fracturing, i simply do not see how or why they'd have held together after Sanga. They'd have gone the same way as they did after Nagabhatta or Mihir Bhoj- fracture. 
    I am highly doubtful that they'd have gone on to Delhi, because in typical Rajput fashion, once 'Rajputana was safe', they'd go back their squabbling. But as you say, its speculative and we won't know for sure. I am also not sure, even if the Rajputs were united, they'd be able to prevent the rise of the next muslim overlord in North India. Only difference would be, he'd either be Afghan or Turk, not Mughal. 
     
    It was Babur, who came up with the idea of 'Ghazwa-e-Hindh'. Because Babur was desperate. You see, Babur didn't come to India because he wanted to conquer India. He came to India, because he was about to be killed by the Uzbeks and Safavids,already having lost to the extremely powerful Uzbek warlord Mohammed Shaybani. Shaybani is the guy who evicted Babur from his ancestral homeland in Ferghana, upon which, Babur fled to Kabul. To show, how powerful Shaybani was and how utterly helpless Babur was, when he conquered Samarkand from Babur, he gave Babur only two options : death or exile, contingent ONLY upon Babur agreeing to the marriage of his sister, Khanzada Begum, with Shaybani. 
    He carved out a kingdom in Kabul and for a time being, was protected by the Safavid-Uzbek strife, with them both occupied with each other. He tried to capture Ferghana again, after Shaybani died, with help of Shah Ismail of Persia (the first Safavid monarch) but ultimately failed and it caused enough friction between him and Shah Ismael (due to failed joint expedition), that he fled to India. 

    Hence Babur comes across as so extreme in terms of motivating his soldiers - he had nowhere else to go. Only Timur, who also used religion and called himself ' sword of Islam', relied on the frenzied power of religion, to motivate his troops as much. 
     
    Lastly, Ram Singh had way, way more supplies than Borpukhan. True, Aurangzeb made life hard for Ram Singh, but he most definitely didnt lose because of standard supply issues. He was better supplied than Borpukhan and he was an extremely meticulous planner. But Borpukhan was brilliant during Saraighati and thats why he won. 
    IIRC, Saraighati was studied in Indian army & navy, as a case-study of how to win despite being inferior in every which way to your opponent...dont know if they still do it.
     

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×