Looking Through Broken Glass: Rajput Victories In Indian History
- Thread starter RATHORE
- Start date
Battlefield success is clearly defined - the achievement of all battlefield objectives. Where is the ambiguity? Merely an intellectual creation?
What are the battlefield objectives? A mere subset of the Battlefield Goals? And what are they? Subset of the Mission as defined.
And what is Mission? A subset of nothing but the strategy? And what is strategy in this context if not but the plan to achieve your political objectives?
What was the Rajput kingdom's political objectives? Political subservience? I think not, or was it?
Bengalis are Braver than Persians
Only Three-Fourths ( 75 % ) of them Converted
An observation of a defeated mind. What was the cradle of Indian Nationalism arising of a progressive intellectualism? Ponder over that.
I really don't understand what your itch is. Or why a very simple, basic fact doesn't seem to make it through to you. This thread was posted as a counter to all the constant, exaggerated and unfair bashing aimed at one community; and the fact that it contained less well known bits of history made it even more important to post.
This thread was a much needed counterbalance to an incorrect, but common narrative; THAT is neutrality. There is no shortage of Rajput bashing anywhere, including on this very forum (by a particular troll), at the time of posting. And if your idea of "neutrality" is more such bashing, then as I've said before, you can always post a thread of your own.
But don't try to act like the sole guardian of neutrality/objectivity on here, you're not fooling anyone, especially with the preconceived notions clearly reflected in your comments up to this point...
@RATHORE
Are Rathores Dalits?
Today's news says that a dalit with your surname was lynched by high caste Rajputs for owning and riding a horse.
This was in Bhavnagar district of Gujarat.
The victim's father claims the Rajputs were displeased about the youth daring to own and ride a horse, which led to them attacking and killing him.
Both political and social objectives were achieved.
I'd personally say the Brahmin Rajput alliance was pretty near 100% successful in that.
Cheers, Doc
Are Rathores Dalits?
Today's news says that a dalit with your surname was lynched by high caste Rajputs for owning and riding a horse.
This was in Bhavnagar district of Gujarat.
The victim's father claims the Rajputs were displeased about the youth daring to own and ride a horse, which led to them attacking and killing him.
Both political and social objectives were achieved.
I'd personally say the Brahmin Rajput alliance was pretty near 100% successful in that.
Cheers, Doc
Last edited:
The itch to remain consistently objective in my posts if they are counter to the generally accepted history? Difficult?
On the contrary, the 'fact' itself lays on dubious claims. Forgive my opacity to this 'light' that you shed.
A laudable effort. Head back to what I posted originally. And what the thread OP conveys.
But what if I am the said sole guardian? Instead of acting the bruised ego that you progressively appear here, you could have approached the situation differently, couldn't you?
Ponder over that one
There in lies our point of divergence . I was not referring to battle losses and gains exclusively . Had that been the case , we wouldn't be having this exchange.
Pray, what does the thread title convey, if not victory? What is a victory?
Aren't all wars the means of achieving the political objectives? Or the diplomacy by other means? If that indeed is so, then I hardly find a divergence of any substance in the context my dear sir.
It refers to instances of RAJPUT victory . What did you understand by it ? RAJPUT dominance of India in the medieval ages ?
I since edited my post to clarify. My apologies.
What are battlefield moves if not the means to a political objective? What are wars if not diplomacy by other means? What remains war but a means to force your opponent to acquiesce to your will? The will, of course, being the guided by your political objectives?
Except you aren't. You pretend to be objective and try to claim some sort of moral high ground for yourself, when in fact your comments on this thread have clearly reflected your pre conceived notions and ideological bias on the issue. Is objectivity allowing and/or continuing to encourage an inaccurate but dominant narrative which already exists?
There are no dubious claims. There is a dubious but dominant narrative, I challenged it with some examples from history which are not frequently taught or discussed, and you lost your mind because this thread didn't also bash Rajputs to your satisfaction like practically every other place where the topic is discussed.
I don't need to go back to anything, you're clearly bothered by the fact that there's not enough Rajput bashing on this thread for your taste. So I advised you that if you're looking for the same old, tired, inaccurate but dominant narrative, start such a thread of your own. But this thread was meant to be a counter to that narrative.
But what if I am the said sole guardian? Instead of acting the bruised ego that you progressively appear here, you could have approached the situation differently, couldn't you?
Ponder over that one
You're not. If you want to flatter yourself as being the Guardian, that's your prerogative, but go do it elsewhere. And don't teach me how to approach the situation; you started off our engagement in an insulting manner (don't bother denying it, if that's the way you want to play the situation, and feign innocence, I'm not even interested in talking to you). You should have approached the situation differently if you wanted a different outcome, especially since I wasn't the one who approached you first.
Ponder over that one.
"Low caste" people often take on "high caste" last names and choose to go by them, not an unknown or rare phenomenon. Irrelevant Bait attempt failed.
As for the murder, I don't trust the initial "story" behind news of that nature on the very first day. If the police look into the matter, and determine that account to be true, then it's unfortunate. Attempt to derail thread also failed.
Let us quit diplomatic and military history jargon and try to view this situation in lay men's terms .
My 2 cents -
I would regard battle conquests of a people as merely a fourth of a conquering people's objective . The surrender of ones political dominance as another fourth . The loss of religion comprises another fourth . The loss of ones culture ( language , rituals , customs , etc . ) as the last fourth .( The latter 2 being in no particular order )
Now you can apply your standard jargon to this layman's description of what it means to be a defeated people , a conquered people or a vanquished people and decide where do the Rajputs fit in with your narrative .
A few examples may be in order -
The American Indians lost everything from their land to their political autonomy to their religion and their culture ( to a large extent . One still reads about a small no of Indian tribes in isolated areas trying to uphold their culture but they lack the nos )
The Arab conquest of Persia determined that the Persians lost their territory , political autonomy ( they regained it after conversion to Islam - their conquerors religion after a lapse of centuries ) , their religion and only retained their culture ( Persians firmly resisted imposition of Arabic on them . The Arabs compromised and the Persians became bilingual ) .
Compare these random examples to the Rajputs applying all those yardsticks of military strategy and political objectives that you've detailed .
Last edited:
So how would one know he is a low caste Rathore and not an "original" Rathore for issues related to caste. Like marriage for instance? Is there something like a secret handshake?
Personally, as an Indian living in India I'd consider the killing of an Indian for riding a horse more than just "unfortunate". I'd consider it part of the cancer that eats away at our society and keeps it divided and perpetuates grave injustices.
Cheers, Doc
Why are you worried about Rajput matrimony now? Getting divorced? No bawas left that'd give a daughter to Doc?
As for the death; who's to say it was for riding a horse? The victim's father is claiming that right now, doesn't make it a fact until the police determine it to be one. Either way, a death is unfortunate.
I have a serious question (not that the previous one about the secret handshake was not).
How is it that sitting in LA you are up to date with local news like this as quickly as us?
Cheers, Doc
What do you care? And why the double game? You don't get to launch full scale attacks with invective at me, make insinuations about my lineage, and then pretend to make nice and strike up casual conversation with me. I don't do duplicity.
Circa 1990 through to 1995 I was the most eligible Parsi bachelor in Poona alongside Darius Dorabjee.
Pretty sure were I to get back in the game, I wouldn't be the one approaching the dads.
Just putting a matter of fact point across. Based on the ladies.
Cheers, Doc
Hence dickraas ancestors here made it to India in 750 CE , before the conversion process began in earnest . He has records to show .