Lone Wolf Posted February 22 Posted February 22 (edited) On 2/20/2025 at 9:59 PM, AshVin said: Fault of North Hindus. They elevated Sikhs so much with fake history i.e Sikhs saved Hindus etc that Sikhs started to believe their own made up supremacy. The largest Sikh Empire which existed was merely 1/6th the size of Maratha Empire. Marathas and Vijayanagara Kings did a better job of saving Hindus down South than Sikhs ever did in the North. Add the dumb Jatt supremacy to the equation and you'll understand the low IQ behavior of Bhajji and Yuvi. Learn some history kid... Post and Prior to Marathas eventual defeat to Abdali in Panipat. Abdali used to raid Mathura and nearby areas with impunity on Holi days while Marathas did nothing to stop him. Then he ended their supremacy in North India for good in Panipat. Hindus were indeed helpless and who can forget atrocities of Afghans in Kashmir. Sikh empire saved millions of Dharmics and put fear of God in Afghans. After literally thousand years one Indian Empire finally put a fork on Khyber Pass. As far as North and North Western Dharmic is concerned... Sikh empire's contribution surpassess Marathas. Sometime do read about Hari Singh Nalwa if you ever get time. It's a shame we never see movies on real heroes coz it would hurt Muslim sentiments. Edited February 22 by Lone Wolf
Lone Wolf Posted February 22 Posted February 22 11 hours ago, coffee_rules said: Forget condoning his cousin, he supports Kashmir insurgency, terrorism and freedom. There should be no love for Shahid Afridi in whatever field. There is no ethical or neeti in sledging. McGrath told Sarwan some horrible things and he retaliated about his wife. McGrath got offended. Afretard is a Islamist and Jihad supporter but he also lives in Paxtan. You can't seriously expect any sane person to go after its own country. He would be dead in no time lol. Remember in 2016 T20 Wc he only said Pakistani players get more love in India than Pak & he was thrashed badly in Pakistan for that.
Gollum Posted February 22 Posted February 22 (edited) Don't understand the vitriol desh bhakt ICFers have for Pak players and team. I mean they don't bat an eyelid when Ahmedabad hosts Pak in WC game with sold out crowd (despite BJP/Gujarat being so anti-Pak) and we even had the WC opening ceremony that day, 2 weeks after the tournament started. That's right, as long as your bosses can make money out of this fixture, all well and good. Our Punjabis may be chummy with Pakistanis but at least they aren't hypocrites. And they know the cost of conflict with Pakistan, having borne the brunt of suffering and continuing to take hits even today. Stop making a spectacle out of your desh bhakti and apply it selectively. Edited February 22 by Gollum Mariyam, Lord and Lone Wolf 3
AuxiliA Posted February 22 Posted February 22 9 minutes ago, Gollum said: Don't understand the vitriol desh bhakt ICFers have for Pak players and team. I mean they don't bat an eyelid when Ahmedabad hosts Pak in WC game with sold out crowd (despite BJP/Gujarat being so anti-Pak) and we even had the WC opening ceremony that day, 2 weeks after the tournament started. That's right, as long as your bosses can make money out of this fixture, all well and good. Our Punjabis may be chummy with Pakistanis but at least they aren't hypocrites. And they know the cost of conflict with Pakistan, having borne the brunt of suffering and continuing to take hits even today. Stop making a spectacle out of your desh bhakti and apply it selectively. Nothing wrong or even hypocritical about hosting Pak in a WC match at Ahmedabad. The money goes to the ICC and local stadiums, not Pak(directly). It's just a formality and not like we are kissing Pak's ass as in the case with Yuvi here. BCCI not playing bilaterals with Pak has less to do with 'morality' or 'taking a stand' but more to do with hurting Pak financially. It's a form of economic sanction and it has worked very well. PCB is in tatters and Pakistan in general has suffered a lot due to isolation from Indian economy. If we boycott Pak and forfeit matches in ICC tournaments then we would only be hurting ourselves. And if we have to play Pak in WCs then why not play them in giant stadiums and milk money out of it.
AuxiliA Posted February 22 Posted February 22 14 hours ago, Lord said: That is on field sledging. Post retirement things change Nothing wrong in being cordial and behaving with dignity. Even I personally never liked derogatory racial name calling of Pakistanis and BDesis here on ICF. But the thing is people like Yuvi (& his * Dad), Sidhu, etc come across as desperate ass-lickers trying hard to suck up to the Padosies. That would be ok with any other country on earth but not with Pak. Yuvi's racist, mysogynist, wife-beating, drunkard father is worst of them. The bastard racially bullies poor, impoverished hindi-speaking labourers but calls for friendship with terror sponsoring and Hindu-Sikh murdering Pakistani state.
Mariyam Posted February 22 Posted February 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, AuxiliA said: Nothing wrong or even hypocritical about hosting Pak in a WC match at Ahmedabad. The money goes to the ICC and local stadiums, not Pak(directly). It's just a formality and not like we are kissing Pak's ass as in the case with Yuvi here. BCCI not playing bilaterals with Pak has less to do with 'morality' or 'taking a stand' but more to do with hurting Pak financially. It's a form of economic sanction and it has worked very well. PCB is in tatters and Pakistan in general has suffered a lot due to isolation from Indian economy. If we boycott Pak and forfeit matches in ICC tournaments then we would only be hurting ourselves. And if we have to play Pak in WCs then why not play them in giant stadiums and milk money out of it. BCCI being the financial behemoth that it is, can just ( on the insistence of GoI) ask ICC to debar Pakistan from world cricket till their government parts ways with terror as an instrument of state policy. Or BCCI can refuse to play any ICC events. ICC would go bankrupt before I finish typing this post. ICC would have to comply. But instead we invite them to play. Our Airspace is open for their airlines. Why is the onus on civilians? But yes, Yuvraj ne sabka badla lena hai. Yuvraj nahi, Faisal Faijjal hai wo. Makes a lot of sense! Edited February 22 by Mariyam Lord 1
AuxiliA Posted February 22 Posted February 22 27 minutes ago, Mariyam said: BCCI being the financial behemoth that it is, can just ( on the insistence of GoI) ask ICC to debar Pakistan from world cricket till their government parts ways with terror as an instrument of state policy. Or BCCI can refuse to play any ICC events. ICC would go bankrupt before I finish typing this post. ICC would have to comply. But instead we invite them to play. Our Airspace is open for their airlines. Why is the onus on civilians? But yes, Yuvraj ne sabka badla lena hai. Yuvraj nahi, Faisal Faijjal hai wo. Makes a lot of sense! Pakistan has had lot of strong backers in the Western and Islamic world. The British had aided the creation of Pak to serve it's long term interests. Hell even China supports them just so that they could be a nuisance to India. It hasn't been easy for us to tackle Pak. That being said things have gotten a hell lot of worse for Pak under Modi, both economically and geo-politically. He has succeeded in dehyphenating India with Pak and has gotten several powerful Arab countries to support India's stance on Kashmir and terrorism. Even the Taliban is viciously anti-Pak now and is killing Pak army like flies nowadays. Things will only keep getting worse for Pak in future and they will most likely lose large parts of KPK and Balochistan in the next 5-10 years. Coming to Yuvi, I actually like him (although not his dad). I was only calling out his stupid, needless statement. He should learn to read the room.. ravishingravi 1
mesky11 Posted February 22 Posted February 22 53 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said: @mesky11 thoughts on this? Another ass licker, his dad was a congress politician from Jamnagar.
Gollum Posted February 22 Posted February 22 2 hours ago, Lone Wolf said: @mesky11 thoughts on this? Brown nosing ke chakkar mein very easy to overstep and get charged with blasphemy. Anyway who cares about this fixer? Guys like him and Azhar should have been permanently boycotted. Lone Wolf 1
AuxiliA Posted February 22 Posted February 22 4 hours ago, Lone Wolf said: @mesky11 thoughts on this? I don't mind being respectful towards Islam or any other religion. Nothing wrong with it as long as you aren't doing it at the expense of Hinduism. I only mind when Hindus are respectful towards Islamists or act as their apologists. Coz it has serious real life repercussions.
rangeelaraja Posted February 23 Posted February 23 (edited) 18 hours ago, Lone Wolf said: Learn some history ... Post and Prior to Marathas eventual defeat to Abdali in Panipat. Abdali used to raid Mathura and nearby areas with impunity on Holi days while Marathas did nothing to stop him. Then he ended their supremacy in North India for good in Panipat. Hindus were indeed helpless and who can forget atrocities of Afghans in Kashmir. Sikh empire saved millions of Dharmics and put fear of God in Afghans. After literally thousand years one Indian Empire finally put a fork on Khyber Pass. As far as North and North Western Dharmic is concerned... Sikh empire's contribution surpassess Marathas. Sometime do read about Hari Singh Nalwa if you ever get time. It's a shame we never see movies on real heroes coz it would hurt Muslim sentiments. @Lone Wolf I don’t mean to go off-topic, but your understanding of Indian history is seriously ignorant , how do you BS so effortlessly ? Comparing the great Maratha Empire to the Sikh Empire in terms of scale, duration, and achievements must be the highest level of BS in ICF. The Sikh Empire was brave but localized, whereas the Marathas shaped Indian history on a national scale. Here are the hard historical facts—challenge them if you dare: The Marathas controlled 2.8 million km² (two-thirds of India) at their peak, while the Sikh Empire covered just 500,000 km² (mostly Punjab and parts of Afghanistan). The Marathas fought Aurangzeb (1658–1707) at the peak of Mughal power, resisted him for 27 years, and captured Delhi in 1771, reducing the Mughals to mere figureheads. The Sikhs fought the Mughals only after they were already in decline. The Marathas ruled from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, from Gujarat to Bengal, while the Sikh Empire remained largely limited to Punjab and parts of Afghanistan. The Marathas crushed the Mughals, Portuguese, British (initially before they lost ), Nizams, Mysore, Afghans, Rajputs, and Bengal Nawabs. The Sikhs mainly fought Afghans and the British. The Marathas installed and removed Mughal emperors at will, ruling Delhi for decades. The Sikh Empire never controlled Delhi or played a role in Indian politics beyond Punjab. The Maratha Empire lasted 144 years (1674–1818), while the Sikh Empire lasted just 50 years (1799–1849) and collapsed within a decade after Ranjit Singh’s death. You keep bringing up Panipat (1761), but why ignore the fact that the Marathas recaptured Delhi in 1771 and dominated India for another 50 years? The Marathas had already crushed the Afghans at Attock and Peshawar in 1758. Meanwhile, the Sikh Empire lost to the British in just 4 years (1845–1849) and never recovered. The Marathas fought the British for nearly 50 years (1775–1818), while the Sikh Empire was annexed in just 4 years (1845–1849). The Marathas played a key role in preserving Hindu identity, resisting Mughal religious oppression, protecting temples, and reviving Hindu rule across vast regions of India. The reason South India has significantly more Hindu temples than North India is because the Marathas stopped Mughal expansion in the South, preventing the destruction of temples—something North India wasn’t as fortunate to escape. I respect the bravery of the Sikh Empire and Hari Singh Nalwa, but comparing their influence to the Marathas is just plain ignorance. Edited February 23 by rangeelaraja
Lone Wolf Posted February 23 Posted February 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, rangeelaraja said: @Lone Wolf I don’t mean to go off-topic, but your understanding of Indian history is seriously ignorant , how do you BS so effortlessly ? Comparing the great Maratha Empire to the Sikh Empire in terms of scale, duration, and achievements must be the highest level of BS in ICF. The Sikh Empire was brave but localized, whereas the Marathas shaped Indian history on a national scale. Here are the hard historical facts—challenge them if you dare: The Marathas controlled 2.8 million km² (two-thirds of India) at their peak, while the Sikh Empire covered just 500,000 km² (mostly Punjab and parts of Afghanistan). The Marathas fought Aurangzeb (1658–1707) at the peak of Mughal power, resisted him for 27 years, and captured Delhi in 1771, reducing the Mughals to mere figureheads. The Sikhs fought the Mughals only after they were already in decline. The Marathas ruled from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, from Gujarat to Bengal, while the Sikh Empire remained largely limited to Punjab and parts of Afghanistan. The Marathas crushed the Mughals, Portuguese, British (initially before they lost ), Nizams, Mysore, Afghans, Rajputs, and Bengal Nawabs. The Sikhs mainly fought Afghans and the British. The Marathas installed and removed Mughal emperors at will, ruling Delhi for decades. The Sikh Empire never controlled Delhi or played a role in Indian politics beyond Punjab. The Maratha Empire lasted 144 years (1674–1818), while the Sikh Empire lasted just 50 years (1799–1849) and collapsed within a decade after Ranjit Singh’s death. You keep bringing up Panipat (1761), but why ignore the fact that the Marathas recaptured Delhi in 1771 and dominated India for another 50 years? The Marathas had already crushed the Afghans at Attock and Peshawar in 1758. Meanwhile, the Sikh Empire lost to the British in just 4 years (1845–1849) and never recovered. The Marathas fought the British for nearly 50 years (1775–1818), while the Sikh Empire was annexed in just 4 years (1845–1849). The Marathas played a key role in preserving Hindu identity, resisting Mughal religious oppression, protecting temples, and reviving Hindu rule across vast regions of India. The reason South India has significantly more Hindu temples than North India is because the Marathas stopped Mughal expansion in the South, preventing the destruction of temples—something North India wasn’t as fortunate to escape. I respect the bravery of the Sikh Empire and Hari Singh Nalwa, but comparing their influence to the Marathas is just plain ignorance. It's not direct comparison.. I specifically wrote North and North West Dharmics. Marathas never managed to get a consistent hold on North and even at their Peak they couldn't stop Abdali raiding Hindu Holy sites and situation was dire in North West thanks to power vaccum created with Mughal Empire at its weakest post Nader Shah's invasion. Mathura and Vrindavan Amritsar were routinely sacked by Abdalis ..Post 1758 he recaptured almost the entire North West & we all know 1761 was the final blow. There was doom and gloom everywhere. It's a written fact No Indian emperor(not Mughals )since centuries ever managed to Control Khyber Pass and after 1000 years Ranjit Singh Pulled it off. You must have heard about Barelvi and his sect. The amount of Hatred he carried for Ranjit Singh and his empire and called for Jihad (origin of this term) against them. It was for a damn reason. They had virtually erased Wahabism that Aurangzeb had mainstreamed throughout the North & even cow slaughter was strictly banned. Kashmir was free from tyranny and even KP's call it end of the dark era (rule of Afghans) Even Marathas in their early exchanges with Afghans fought with Sikhs together and routed them. Idk the exact reasons why the alliance formally never materialized. Deep respect to Marathas for their contribution in their fight for Dharma. They started the fight indeed but my response was to the poster who was saying Sikh empire was a small one so it had nothing to offer lol Edited February 23 by Lone Wolf
Lone Wolf Posted February 23 Posted February 23 (edited) 8 hours ago, Gollum said: Brown nosing ke chakkar mein very easy to overstep and get charged with blasphemy. Anyway who cares about this fixer? Guys like him and Azhar should have been permanently boycotted. The host correcting him in the end was funny Edited February 23 by Lone Wolf Gollum 1
rangeelaraja Posted February 23 Posted February 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said: It's not direct comparison.. I specifically wrote North and North West Dharmics. Marathas never managed to get a consistent hold on North and even at their Peak they couldn't stop Abdali raiding Hindu Holy sites and situation was dire in North West thanks to power vaccum created with Mughal Empire at its weakest post Nader Shah's invasion. Mathura and Vrindavan Amritsar were routinely sacked by Abdalis ..Post 1758 he recaptured almost the entire North West & we all know 1761 was the final blow. There was doom and gloom everywhere. It's a written fact No Indian emperor(not Mughals )since centuries ever managed to Control Khyber Pass and after 1000 years Ranjit Singh Pulled it off. You must have heard about Barelvi and his sect. The amount of Hatred he carried for Ranjit Singh and his empire and called for Jihad (origin of this term) against them. It was for a damn reason. They had virtually erased Wahabism that Aurangzeb had mainstreamed throughout the North & even cow slaughter was strictly banned. Kashmir was free from tyranny and even KP's call it end of the dark era (rule of Afghans) Even Marathas in their early exchanges with Afghans fought with Sikhs together and routed them. Idk the exact reasons why the alliance formally never materialized. Deep respect to Marathas for their contribution in their fight for Dharma. They started the fight indeed but my response was to the poster who was saying Sikh empire was a small one so it had nothing to offer lol What you are missing is that .....Marathas Relied on Local Alliances for Logistics Unlike the Sikh Empire, which fought AROUND in its home region against Afghans, the Marathas fought across India, requiring alliances for supplies and reinforcements. In Bengal (1751–1760), they secured a deal with the Nawab for resources. In Delhi (1771), they allied with Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, recapturing Delhi after Panipat. Marathas Lost at Panipat (1761)due to : 1.Lack of local allies—Jats, Rajputs, and Sikhs refused to help. 2.Logistics collapsed—cut off from supplies, they fought starved and isolated. 3.Far from home—unlike the Sikh empire, Marathas had no territorial base in Punjab. What you are also missing is .....The Marathas Fought the Afghans at Their Peak They faced Ahmad Shah Abdali at his strongest in 1761. Till 1767, Afghan installed governors ruled Punjab, Its only after 1818+, when Sikh empire expanded beyond Punjab, into Kashmir and Peshawar....By 1818, Abdali was a much weaker foe. So capturing Khyber pass ...etc was not a matter of valor or capability —the Marathas were fighting the Mughal Empire at its absolute peak, an empire orders of magnitude larger and far better equipped than the Afghans. If the Marathas had secured proper logistics at Panipat, they would have crushed the Afghans in 1761 and also seized Khyber pass. Edited February 23 by rangeelaraja
Vilander Posted February 23 Posted February 23 On 2/21/2025 at 2:47 PM, Vancouver said: Kohli has more in common with a Lahori than his team mates like KL Rahul or Balaji etc. This is one of Punjabi myths. Vancouver checks out. There is nothing in common between nigga Indians and dudh ka dhula hua Turkish ancestry Olympic gold medal winning Pakistanis. Lone Wolf 1
Lone Wolf Posted February 23 Posted February 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said: What you are missing is that .....Marathas Relied on Local Alliances for Logistics Unlike the Sikh Empire, which fought AROUND in its home region against Afghans, the Marathas fought across India, requiring alliances for supplies and reinforcements. In Bengal (1751–1760), they secured a deal with the Nawab for resources. In Delhi (1771), they allied with Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, recapturing Delhi after Panipat. Marathas Lost at Panipat (1761)due to : 1.Lack of local allies—Jats, Rajputs, and Sikhs refused to help. 2.Logistics collapsed—cut off from supplies, they fought starved and isolated. 3.Far from home—unlike the Sikh empire, Marathas had no territorial base in Punjab. What you are also missing is .....The Marathas Fought the Afghans at Their Peak They faced Ahmad Shah Abdali at his strongest in 1761. Till 1767, Afghan installed governors ruled Punjab, Its only after 1818+, when Sikh empire expanded beyond Punjab, into Kashmir and Peshawar....By 1818, Abdali was a much weaker foe. So capturing Khyber pass ...etc was not a matter of valor or capability —the Marathas were fighting the Mughal Empire at its absolute peak, an empire orders of magnitude larger and far better equipped than the Afghans. If the Marathas had secured proper logistics at Panipat, they would have crushed the Afghans in 1761 and also seized Khyber pass. That's the point though it was called Maratha confederacy for a reason. The Chatrapati, 8 confederates (ministers) all were part of it. It is always difficult to maintain huge swaths of land and Marathas were honestly were not liked by everyone too so a confederacy was the way to go for them. Sikhs empire had one genuine mortal enemies which were the Afghans (always remember even British struggled to control Khyber agency throughout & had to make several deals with Afghan emir ) Later on it was about British & Anglo Sikh war (the last major Indian power to fell at the hands of British) Dogras who were kinda final branch of Ranjit Singh's empire went on to clash with Tibetan empire and made enemies Outta Qing dynasty of China as well. Not to mention bringing frontier areas like Hunza Chitral back into Indian fold. Post 1761 obviously Marathas realized there is not a lot to gain in meddling with North West & there were problems in the south for them with Nizam and Mysore so they faded from the region & it was virtually open season for Afghans until Sikh empire went on to stop them. So obviously their spheres of influence were different. Fact remained that Marathas didn't managed to influence North and North West the way they were supposed & you are right things would have been different had 1761 gone the other way but it didn't. Edited February 23 by Lone Wolf
rangeelaraja Posted February 23 Posted February 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said: That's the point though it was called Maratha confederacy for a reason. The Chatrapati, 8 confederates (ministers) all were part of it. It is always difficult to maintain huge swaths of land and Marathas were honestly were not liked by everyone too so a confederacy was the way to go for them. Sikhs empire had one genuine mortal enemies which were the Afghans (always remember even British struggled to control Khyber agency throughout & had to make several deals with Afghan emir ) Later on it was about British & Anglo Sikh war (the last major Indian power to fell at the hands of British) Dogras who were kinda final branch of Ranjit Singh's empire went on to clash with Tibetan empire and made enemies Outta Qing dynasty of China as well. Not to mention bringing frontier areas like Hunza Chitral back into Indian fold. Post 1761 obviously Marathas realized there is not a lot to gain in meddling with North West & there were problems in the south for them with Nizam and Mysore so they faded from the region & it was virtually open season for Afghans until Sikh empire went on to stop them. So obviously their spheres of influence were different. Fact remained that Marathas didn't managed to influence North and North West the way they were supposed & you are right things would have been different had 1761 gone the other way but it didn't. Again thats factually incorrect, as it seems your needle is stuck in Punjab and North West of Punjab. The Marathas ruled Delhi for 32 years after taking Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II under their protection in 1771 as a puppet. Marathas ruled Delhi from 1771 to 1803 when they lost to British. Delhi is North India. Marathas also ruled the Doab region from 1771–1803 --which includes Agra, Kanpur, Aligarh, Bareilly, and Mathura in current Uttar Pradesh. All of this is North India. Edited February 23 by rangeelaraja
Lone Wolf Posted February 23 Posted February 23 10 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said: Again thats factually incorrect, as it seems your needle is stuck in Punjab and North West of Punjab. The Marathas ruled Delhi for 32 years after taking Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II under their protection in 1771 as a puppet. Marathas ruled Delhi from 1771 to 1803 when they lost to British. Delhi is North India. Marathas also ruled the Doab region from 1771–1803 --which includes Agra, Kanpur, Aligarh, Bareilly, and Mathura in current Uttar Pradesh. All of this is North India. Umm nope you are talking about acquisition that happened in 1797-1805 that's a small period This is the extent of their empire post 1805. Their power faded considerably in the North
rangeelaraja Posted February 23 Posted February 23 4 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said: Umm nope you are talking about acquisition that happened in 1797-1805 that's a small period This is the extent of their empire post 1805. Their power faded considerably in the North Bhai, do you even read what I posted ? I said 1803 they lost control to Brits..and thats exactly what you are posting with a 1805 political map. From 1771 to 1803 Marathas controlled the Doab region, which includes vast swathes of current UP ( " North India " )
Recommended Posts