vayuu1 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 so this is another bollywood movie about an evil muslim king .... okay. Not just evil, but a trisexual on top of that, like girls, boys and eunuch as well. Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vayuu1 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 can you explain me something ? who were raped and tortured and forcefully converted and following their religion till this day ? The Subcontinental Muslim's, if you go to any Arab country they call you mushriq. Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vayuu1 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Khilji was not an invader of India. Ala-Du-Din was born in India, he aint no foreigner. But he was a shyte person. Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk Muloghonto 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vayuu1 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 THIS!!! Rajput this Rajput that... But guess what, they were never united and thats the reason they lost every single battle to the invaders... EVERY SINGLE BATTLE!! Heck to save themselves, they even offered liaisons by marrying their daughters to invaders to be safe.. Atleast Marathas had a long term plan and were together. They fought, went outside their territory all the way to Delhi and even Peshwar, Marathas were not as strong and brave as Rajputs, but they knew that these invaders were outsiders.. Compare that to Rajputs!! No advanced military training, no plan to extend their territories.. No wonder why half of Pakistan is full of Rajputs.. I love reading Indian history and know each and every war Indian or Rajput Kings fought.. and I learnt lessons just reading from those books.. The lesson is 'Be united or these invaders are gonna come kill you and dishonor your family'... Other than Battle of Khanwa, never ever Rajputanas were united. They rather preferred serving and fighting against Rajputs under Mughals than work together to fights the Sultans or Mughals... Regarding this movie, its fake story... Ratansingh ran away from the battle (departed), Padmavati committed Jauhar (nothing to be proud of).. In reality, it was Kamala Devi (Wife of king of Gujrat) who Allaudin married to after killing the king.. Also, Allaudin son from other wife wanted to marry Kamla Devis daughter from her first marriage.. Allaudin was a brutal gay.. I hope he is depicted as a brutal gay in the movie.. The guy ordered massacre of 50,000 Hindus in the first battle of Chittor and countless rapes there.. and that was just one battle.. Fixed. Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vayuu1 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 lol. now its called cherry picking.... according to the legendray baba ji molughunto, you , me and his , and all of sub-cont ancestors were raped .... he said this himself on ICF .... now goodluck for your cherry picking stuff.The peaceful conversions were till, it was peaceful in south as soon as things turned violent, the conversions stopped, it become either forced or lured, take for example tipu sultan, forced many namboodri Brahmins to convert and forced them to eat beef. Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vayuu1 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Alexander was better educated, in 330 BC, than almost any muslim ruler has been, in history of Islam. Most people don't know this, but Alexander's actual teacher (his direct,living Guru) was Aristotle. I know that. Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk Muloghonto 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, vayuu1 said: The Subcontinental Muslim's, if you go to any Arab country they call you mushriq. Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk so muslims ancestors in sub-cont gt raped. means everyone gt raped. okay btw, they called sub-cont muslims as Hindi, not mushriq. Edited October 13, 2017 by KeyboardWarrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Quote I sit on the steps of the ruined temple and read about the saga about the dynasty’s end. Somewhere in the middle of the 13th century, the Hoysala kingdom was divided between two brothers, Narasimha III who ruled from Dwarasamudra and Ramanatha from Kannanur. The brothers fought over Dwarasamudra even as Narasimha III’s son Veera Ballalla III came to the throne. He eventually became the last king of the dynasty as the final blow came in the form of Malik kafur, a general of Alauddin Khilji who invaded south in the 14th century. The invaders forced Ballalla III to submit and looted him of 312 elephants, 20,000 horses besides jewellery. Dwarasamudra was plundered as Ballalla fled to Belur. A few years later, the king returned and attempted to rebuild Dwarsamudra , but the Muslim onslaught continued. As Dwarasamudra was further destroyed, the king fled to Tiruvannamalai , but died in Madurai while fighting the invaders. It is said the cruel blow came when “ the captured king was slain and skinned , his skin was stuffed with straw and hung from the top of the walls from Madurai. “ Ibn Battuta, the Morroccon traveler who was in the court of Muhammad bin Tughluq, the reigning Sultan at the time records this as I put the book with a heavy heart. Khilji and other sultanat's kaarname in the south, and we have liberal apologists for these barbarians. https://lakshmisharath.com/the-story-of-how-dwarasamudra-became-halebeedu-3/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) Moors rule in Southern Europe is marred by violence and exploitation as well Unlike many other regions, Ind did well to not turn completely green Edited October 13, 2017 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Riddle Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 On 10/12/2017 at 3:32 AM, surajmal said: Didn't realize this until someone pointed out a potential reason for jauhar by rajput women - necrophilia by jihadis. Amazing how these shits are still into the same feckery. I guess you can only go so low as human beings... Necrophilia was a pretty common practice by the invading muslim armies . Hence the occurence of multiple jauhars in Rajputana.They could have simply poisoned themselves to keep off from getting raped but that wouldnt have stopped the savages from mutilating and fornicating with their dead bodies hence the reason to self immolate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 13 minutes ago, TM Riddle said: Necrophilia was a pretty common practice by the invading muslim armies . Hence the occurence of multiple jauhars in Rajputana.They could have simply poisoned themselves to keep off from getting raped but that wouldnt have stopped the savages from mutilating and fornicating with their dead bodies hence the reason to self immolate. Thats not a reason to kill one self. and those who kill themselves in face of adversity are not brave, they are haughty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Riddle Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Guys I know Rajputs are a favorite bashing topic for the hindus but calling their achievements null and void and labelling them all as morons with a death wish is pretty ignorant IMO.Sure we failed to unite for the most part of Indian history and were really poor strategists when it came to the battles but one thing is for certain and that is Rajputs played a huge role in preventing complete North Indian population from becoming Muslims. Many dont know this but after the first attack in Sindh in 712 CE , Arabs couldnt get a much headway inside the north India when at the same time the caliphate reached as far back as France.A series of battles were fought known as Battles of Rajasthan during this 300 year period which resulted in Arabs getting their rear handed to them by a rajput confederecy formed by Pratihars , Guhilots and Palas.Sure the term Rajput wasnt in the use at that time but Pratihars were as much Rajputs as the Rathores , Chauhans and Parmars , all their contemporary (All 3 were their vessels). I have always wondered why this 300 year period between 712 to 1017 CE is never discussed much in our textbooks when in fact it was the time when Hindus were able to resist and beat the shyte of an army that had conquered almost the half known world of that time.It was only after the disintegration of Pratihara empire that their vessels (Chahamanas or Chauhans , Rathores , Kachwahas , Parmars etc) declared themselves independent and the north India got once again divided among many feudetories who kept fighting amongst themselves and which was taken as an advantage by the recently converted fierce Turkic tribes who wanted a more name for themselves just like Persians and Arabs. I would disagree with @rahulrulezz when he says we didnt win any battles.Oh we won loads of them , we just lost the WARS. Battle of Khanwa was definitely a watershed movement in the history of subcontinent.You have to remember that Rana Sanga wasnt some chota mota king of Mewar.He had his empire encompassing most of the Rajasthan, Gujarat , MP and considerable parts of UP.Lodhis of Delhis were extremely fearful of him and were Sultans only in the name.I mean the guy was able to do what no king ever managed to in the history of India , he united almost all rajput clans in a confederecy and IMO was the perfect candidate to rule Delhi had the result been opposite.But Babar was clearly the better thinker , realizing that it would be really hard to fare against such an equipped army , he pulled the classic islamic card of jehad and exhorted his soldiers to fight under the banner of Islam and of course the newly introduced artillary (In truth he was a regular drinker who liked his whores but hey everythings fair in...). People often credit Marathas and their incessant guirella warfare to be one of the chief reasons behind the fall of the mughal empire but at the same time fail to appreciate the role of Rathores of Marwar in taking Aurangzeb down.After the sudden death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in an expedition to Kabul (he was sent there to quell a rebellion of afridis and boy did he do his job) , Aurangzeb tried to usurp the kingdom and kidnapped his two pregnant wives.It was the bravery of Rathores and esp their leader Durgadas that they managed to rescue them from the red fort and then began the series of guirella warfare between Rathores and Mughals which led the emperor pretty shaken (Marathas were kicking some serious ass down south). Similarly there are many stories exemplifying rajput bravery but my point was bashing the whole community without any basis is something only we Hindus are capable of.Sure Rajputs didnt believe in expanding their empires , sure they were a bit too lenient with their POWs (sometimes bordering on idiocy which led to pretty dire consequences) but they were true Sanatanis and sons of this soil who like many different qaums of India laid their lives to preserve the Sanatana dharma. Oh and people always forget but Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was a Sisodia too ( the same house as great Maharana Pratap) ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Riddle Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Thats not a reason to kill one self. and those who kill themselves in face of adversity are not brave, they are haughty. Thats how we roll brah ;) Joking aside , you will have to understand the society of that era before reaching to conclusions.By the time first jauahr occured the Muslim invaders were already in India for around 3 centuries.There were tales widespread of their raping , brutalizing and selling women as sex slaves.This had a huge impact in the mindset of indian people and systems like Pardah etc gradually emerged.Indian women take a great pride in being pativrata and the above mentioned acts were worse than death like scenario for them.Hence to preserve their satitva they chose to self immolate themselves.Cant really judge that era with the moral standards of 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, TM Riddle said: Thats how we roll brah ;) Joking aside , you will have to understand the society of that era before reaching to conclusions.By the time first jauahr occured the Muslim invaders were already in India for around 3 centuries.There were tales widespread of their raping , brutalizing and selling women as sex slaves.This had a huge impact in the mindset of indian people and systems like Pardah etc gradually emerged.Indian women take a great pride in being pativrata and the above mentioned acts were worse than death like scenario for them.Hence to preserve their satitva they chose to self immolate themselves.Cant really judge that era with the moral standards of 21st century. 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'. Gollum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rahulrulezz Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Buddy I don't think anyone is abusing Rajputs here. As a matter of fact, most of the posts are talking about how they were brace and strong, but as you yourself suggested, they just were stuck with warfare style of 10 century against Mughals. As you said, they didn't win a single battle. And that is a harsh truth. But we all know why. They were never together. Other then Khanwa, never ever they fought together under entity of Rajputana. Probllem in Khanwa was that they fought Babur with Swords, not with Canons. That was a sin in 15th century. Also Silhadi Rajputs cheated Sanga and blame goes to 'Rajputs' Silhadis!! Regsrdles, Rajputs unlike any other Hindu caste, get more than their due. And that's what I have against Rajputs. They are no more or less than other Hindus. But you don't get the same feelings from Rajputs. They act as if they are special. Gollum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Riddle Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: 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'. Listen you are comparing people across the cultures , too many differences. Alright lets agree to disagree but I think we , sitting comfy inside our bedrooms with laptops in place of Khandas , are in no position to judge women who had an army of savages in front of them ready to rape and kill and sell their children to slave markets. And gee whats with the attacking tones , relax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 20 minutes ago, TM Riddle said: Guys I know Rajputs are a favorite bashing topic for the hindus but calling their achievements null and void and labelling them all as morons with a death wish is pretty ignorant IMO.Sure we failed to unite for the most part of Indian history and were really poor strategists when it came to the battles but one thing is for certain and that is Rajputs played a huge role in preventing complete North Indian population from becoming Muslims. Many dont know this but after the first attack in Sindh in 712 CE , Arabs couldnt get a much headway inside the north India when at the same time the caliphate reached as far back as France.A series of battles were fought known as Battles of Rajasthan during this 300 year period which resulted in Arabs getting their rear handed to them by a rajput confederecy formed by Pratihars , Guhilots and Palas.Sure the term Rajput wasnt in the use at that time but Pratihars were as much Rajputs as the Rathores , Chauhans and Parmars , all their contemporary (All 3 were their vessels). I have always wondered why this 300 year period between 712 to 1017 CE is never discussed much in our textbooks when in fact it was the time when Hindus were able to resist and beat the shyte of an army that had conquered almost the half known world of that time.It was only after the disintegration of Pratihara empire that their vessels (Chahamanas or Chauhans , Rathores , Kachwahas , Parmars etc) declared themselves independent and the north India got once again divided among many feudetories who kept fighting amongst themselves and which was taken as an advantage by the recently converted fierce Turkic tribes who wanted a more name for themselves just like Persians and Arabs. I would disagree with @rahulrulezz when he says we didnt win any battles.Oh we won loads of them , we just lost the WARS. Battle of Khanwa was definitely a watershed movement in the history of subcontinent.You have to remember that Rana Sanga wasnt some chota mota king of Mewar.He had his empire encompassing most of the Rajasthan, Gujarat , MP and considerable parts of UP.Lodhis of Delhis were extremely fearful of him and were Sultans only in the name.I mean the guy was able to do what no king ever managed to in the history of India , he united almost all rajput clans in a confederecy and IMO was the perfect candidate to rule Delhi had the result been opposite.But Babar was clearly the better thinker , realizing that it would be really hard to fare against such an equipped army , he pulled the classic islamic card of jehad and exhorted his soldiers to fight under the banner of Islam and of course the newly introduced artillary (In truth he was a regular drinker who liked his whores but hey everythings fair in...). People often credit Marathas and their incessant guirella warfare to be one of the chief reasons behind the fall of the mughal empire but at the same time fail to appreciate the role of Rathores of Marwar in taking Aurangzeb down.After the sudden death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in an expedition to Kabul (he was sent there to quell a rebellion of afridis and boy did he do his job) , Aurangzeb tried to usurp the kingdom and kidnapped his two pregnant wives.It was the bravery of Rathores and esp their leader Durgadas that they managed to rescue them from the red fort and then began the series of guirella warfare between Rathores and Mughals which led the emperor pretty shaken (Marathas were kicking some serious ass down south). Similarly there are many stories exemplifying rajput bravery but my point was bashing the whole community without any basis is something only we Hindus are capable of.Sure Rajputs didnt believe in expanding their empires , sure they were a bit too lenient with their POWs (sometimes bordering on idiocy which led to pretty dire consequences) but they were true Sanatanis and sons of this soil who like many different qaums of India laid their lives to preserve the Sanatana dharma. Oh and people always forget but Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was a Sisodia too ( the same house as great Maharana Pratap) ;) 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. Gollum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Riddle Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said: Buddy I don't think anyone is abusing Rajputs here. As a matter of fact, most of the posts are talking about how they were brace and strong, but as you yourself suggested, they just were stuck with warfare style of 10 century against Mughals. As you said, they didn't win a single battle. And that is a harsh truth. But we all know why. They were never together. Other then Khanwa, never ever they fought together under entity of Rajputana. Probllem in Khanwa was that they fought Babur with Swords, not with Canons. That was a sin in 15th century. Also Silhadi Rajputs cheated Sanga and blame goes to 'Rajputs' Silhadis!! Regsrdles, Rajputs unlike any other Hindu caste, get more than their due. And that's what I have against Rajputs. They are no more or less than other Hindus. But you don't get the same feelings from Rajputs. They act as if they are special. Agree with most of your post except the last part. Rajputs get very very less due despite their contribution to Indian art and culture and of course the wars.I will give you an example , pick up any of the NCERT history textbooks and you would find them mostly in footnotes.In the old ncert medieval history textbook(a favorite for ias aspirants) you would see pages filled with the history and rule of first the sultanate and then Mughals and rajputs are merely reduced to few pages. Dont go by the social media where almost every community glorify themslves.Too many idiots there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, TM Riddle said: Listen you are comparing people across the cultures , too many differences. Alright lets agree to disagree but I think we , sitting comfy inside our bedrooms with laptops in place of Khandas , are in no position to judge women who had an army of savages in front of them ready to rape and kill and sell their children to slave markets. And gee whats with the attacking tones , relax. 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 ! Gollum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Riddle Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: 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. There were Guhils/Gehlots in that era.Bappa Rawal was a vessel to Pratiharas. Thats a nice convenient excuse but the things you have mentioned have been part of Indian history in every era.Deceptions and treachery have been a common theme across indian history , nothing new there. Once again the name calling.Labelling a whole community as ''cowards'' just because they chose to die then face the humiliation of defeat shows your class and upbringing.On one hand we have people appreciating and celebrating the distinct hindu traits of chivalry , protectors of asylum seekers and following rules of dharma in the battles and otoh we have the modern intellectuals like yourself shamelessly painting a whole community with the same brush just because it doesnt fit with your narrative. I m done arguing with you.Have a good day sir. PS: Oh and for all our faults the parts around Rajputana still retained the hindu majority while look what happened to your beloved Bengal.Got divided once due to muslims almost forming around the same numbers as Hindus and on its path again to get divided furthermore if the bengali hindus dont wake up this time around too . B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts