Indian Political Discussion
- Thread starter Parul
- Start date
I'm done with this bullshit nair. Either handle this troll as he should be handled, or I will handle him myself, and then don't complain to me about how I am violating rules or quietly delete my comments while leaving his comments untouched. It really reduces your credibility and neutrality as a mod.
There's also a third option - if you cannot be objective and do your job of making this a trolling-free forum, hand the responsibility of dealing with Guynextdoor over to a mod who will actually do his job like @Aashish . But I'm not going to let you tie my hands while letting this idiot run rampant.
If I wanted to constantly deal with trolls and idiots while being hamstrung by biased and/or ineffectual mods I'd be on a different forum right now. And if you plan to make this place similar to that one, do warn us in advance.
fundamentally flawed logic.
No one gave them (or anyone in that age) political power, they snatched it and secured for themselves kingship and all the previlages that came with it- especially the massive wealth and influence that came with it. They weren't doing anyone any favors. So if they have enjoyed kingship did they at least deliver on security against a national calamity of invaders is the question.
a) from the days of mahmud of gaznavi itself it was clear that to defeat the invaders you need a national resistance that subsumed caste divisions and a large, well equipped, integrated resistnace. They never did that. Instead they kept going into battles again and again and again in pretty much the same way. At no point of time did they call for all Indians to unite, put every able bodied man to battle
b) 'leadership' was in their hands as said above. They never gave transformational leadership of the sort that was needed. The Sikhs did provide the transformational leadership under Guru Arjan Singh, same with the Marathas under Shivaji. In both cases they unified ALL the people of their faith in the service of a national resistance.
c) Everytime accoutsbility of their actions is asked they try to avoid it and endlessly discuss their individual acts of valor. That helps whom? The leadership didn't deliver what was needed and that is just a fact. And efforts to rewrite history or stop its questioning are efforts to whitewash history.
They snatched from whom? -- The weak.
The better lot ruled. The weak must stop cribbing having done nothing in past to show their worth. Invaders didn't just invaded kings but the people. It was collective failure, atleast they fought.
Anymore deriding posts will be deleted.
That is why the invaders succeeded. A group of people 'subjugated' the 'weak' to 'rule them'. Not to govern as custodians of a great civilization with responsibility to protect it. Obviously when the calamitous crisis occured they could not provide the leadership that the times demanded and the 'subjugated' were in no position to fight because of it.
When the Sikhs were reorganized after Arjan Singh martyrdom their rulers were not leading the 'weak', they were reqorganizing their people to effectively combat a common enemy. The same with Shivaji. And questioning this is 'derogatory'? Yeah sure. You can convince 5 year olds with that argument.
And let me use your logic- if the muslims defeated said group again and again in battle then that proves they are 'superior' to the said group is it not and the group is 'weak'. They deserved to be ruled by the strong so they deserve to be subjugated by the muslims- that is the final outcome of your logic.
Sikh, Marathas, Rajputs all were finally colonized which was collective failure of people and not just their rulers. God forbids, if Indian army gets defeated and we are colonized again, we all would be responsible and not just army.
Yes, muslims were better and thus they defeated Indian Kings. All are equal is a flawed logic. There was a food chain and Rajputs were definitely not at the bottom of that if not at the top. That's crude reality.
They were the best to offer by India, even the best of India could not resist the superior forces. Stop cribbing because you were even weaker.
@nair This seems like a fracture in CPM politburo, and congress's(UDF) strategy. Am I right ?
Prakash Karat’s line against allying with Congress gives BJP the upper-hand in his Kerala hometown
The BJP could be unseated in Palakkad municipality, if only the CPI(M) allowed its members to tie up with the Congress.
On Sunday, veteran Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Prakash Karat persuaded members of his organsation not to enter into “any understanding or alliance” with the Congress, a strategy advocated by the general secretary Sitaram Yechury. Awkwardly for Karat, the decision has left the party in a bind in his own hometown.
“We can’t join hands with the Congress to dislodge the BJP in Palakkad municipality,” the communist party’s Lok Sabha member from Palakkad MB Rajesh said. “That would be against our current political line.”
Prakash Karat’s line against allying with Congress gives BJP the upper-hand in his Kerala hometown
Prakash Karat’s line against allying with Congress gives BJP the upper-hand in his Kerala hometown
The BJP could be unseated in Palakkad municipality, if only the CPI(M) allowed its members to tie up with the Congress.
On Sunday, veteran Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Prakash Karat persuaded members of his organsation not to enter into “any understanding or alliance” with the Congress, a strategy advocated by the general secretary Sitaram Yechury. Awkwardly for Karat, the decision has left the party in a bind in his own hometown.
“We can’t join hands with the Congress to dislodge the BJP in Palakkad municipality,” the communist party’s Lok Sabha member from Palakkad MB Rajesh said. “That would be against our current political line.”
Prakash Karat’s line against allying with Congress gives BJP the upper-hand in his Kerala hometown
'collective failure' was better addressed by the groups other than the Rajputs is the point being made. It is no accident that while technology was the undoing of the Sikhs against the british, they were the most firece foe of the British with Ranjit Singh providing far greater and more assertive push back againt the British than even the Mughals or Rajputs or any other groups. This is because their leadership did not deal with 'weak' being ruled by the 'strong'. He considered himself the representative of all sikhs whom he needed to protect. By not allowing that conscoiusness to evolve and continuing to emphasise a 'weak' vs 'strong' logic you are stting us up for another failure.
Muslim invaded and subjugated Hindus, this is both RSS's and Islamic fundamental's way of looking at history. Actually Central Asian Turks subjugated Rajput dynasties. Babar was a Central Asian Turk.
India(plains) was always invaded by Central Asians(mountains). If you study History properly you find that always people of barren areas like the deserts, mountains etc invade the civilizations of plains.
Kaniska was a Central Asian who invaded India. Kasnishka was no muslim or Hindu
Kanishka - Wikipedia
Rajputs of the deserts invaded the Gangetic plains of India.
Maharastra was hilly terrain with little agriculture.
Mogols of the steppes invaded the Chinese civilizations.
Last edited:
I'm not discussing historical narrative but more on the process of leadership failure which gets whitewashed in tese discussions. It can be argued that relegion really had no great primacy in the invaders. Babar came to India because he was booted out of Farghana by his uncle, not because he wanted to spread Islam. Similarly destruction of temples had a lot less to with relegion than the fact that Hindu kings staked their claims of legitimacy through them. Most invaders were nowhere close to being relegious. Most hindu kings 'protecting' their turf were rarely relegious either.
While I can blow all your post to smithereens only because you are posting this to spite a member not as a matter of historical perspective , let me answer you in a language you understand best .
You should be grateful that the Rajputs "lost" out against the Islamic invaders only and only for one reason - you wouldn't have seen the light of Christ otherwise. You would continue to be a pagan and would have lived the rest of your life in the black hole of ignorance followed by a miserable afterlife in the purgatory.
How , You ask ? Well it's like this . The Rajputs considered themselves as Savarnas and were rigid upholders of the caste heirarchy unlike the Jats , Sikhs , Marathas , etc - all of Shudra origin ( the Sikh Gurus were Khatri but the Sikh confederacy was Jat dominated with Maharaja Ranjit Singh himself considered to be of Sansi origins - the Sansis being synonymous with the Gujjars having marital ties with the ruling Jat Sikhs )
This means had they extended their sovereignity over the rest of India having prevailed over the Turks and other Muslim invaders and later on the Portuguese , the French , the British , the Dutch , etc .there's no way in hell your ancestors would've been emancipated . In all likelihood , you'd be tapping toddy like your ancestors in the backwaters of the Malabar coast since time immemorial.
In the light of the above info , you've got to go on your knees and thank the Lord and kiss the feet of every Rajput , Turk and of course the evangelists you come across for your exalted & privileged social status .
P.S - The Lord doth indeed twerk in mysterious ways .
Last edited:
Dude, food chain is real. It was more so when human rights were given two hoots. Its crude reality no matter how inhuman it sounds.
It was not just leadership failure(which was significant), the invaders settling in the fertile plains, concentrate on trade and agriculture, slowly their martial skills become outdated. While people of the deserts and mountains have to strive harder to keep their turf, their martial skills improve over generations.
For Babar it was easier and more profitable to invade India than Ferghana. Babar invaded India for the same reason Kasnishka invaded India.
The point is that Have-nots invade the haves.
You are doing exactly what Akash Chopras of the world questioning the Saurav Gangulys of the world why they could not win India the world cup.
Off to sleep now.
CPM is relevant only in 2 states.... Kerala and tripura......If they agree to Yechuri's idea then their existence in kerala would be under threat.....Nothing much about the municipality as mentioned here..... Such arrangements in pamchayats and municipalities are happening already...I mean across party lines..... But this point is more to do with assembly 2019 elections...
Please report and move on.we may not go thru each and every posts and may miss some..... not intentional.... reporting will help us in keeping it clean
@Infowarrior, which books of history did you study to have such a third rate knowledge of History? If Baber was a central Asian Turk then who were Mongols?
All his knowledge comes from the quran. Nothing else is required. You do realize that "info warrior" is just another name for a "Jihadi".