Agree.
We are welcome to only our own opinions. Not our own facts, as vstol seems to believe.
Cheers, Doc
Third Battle of Panipat- A New Film
- Thread starter vstol Jockey
- Start date
Agree.
We are welcome to only our own opinions. Not our own facts, as vstol seems to believe.
Cheers, Doc
A Muslim general of the Maratha army was Gardi who fought on the sides of the Marathas. Krishna Rao was the son of a Peshwa, born of a Muslim woman who fought and died in the battlefield of Panipat.
The Marathas created their empire because, they were Marathas first. Hindus, Muslims and rest later. Something for us Indians to learn from history. If they had been a pure Hindu Empire, I can assure you, India would have been completely Hindu. Because after them there was no Mughal ruler who could match their sheer size.
The oft stated fiction, is that the Britishers won India from the Mughals. They won it from the Marathas. The Mughals were long defeated and a spent force with their reign not extending beyond the four walls of their palaces.
The Marathas created their empire because, they were Marathas first. Hindus, Muslims and rest later. Something for us Indians to learn from history. If they had been a pure Hindu Empire, I can assure you, India would have been completely Hindu. Because after them there was no Mughal ruler who could match their sheer size.
The oft stated fiction, is that the Britishers won India from the Mughals. They won it from the Marathas. The Mughals were long defeated and a spent force with their reign not extending beyond the four walls of their palaces.
Even at the peak of their power under Aurangzeb, Mongols controlled only 60% of India as most Hindu kings had an on going rebellion against them and a major part of India while under mongol rule was actually disturbed area where their writ never ran.
After Maurya empire, the single biggest empire was that of Marathas.
Which obviously makes you one. There was another one out here claiming ancestry from Cholas and Nairs . Goes to show a superiority complex is inherently derived from an inferiority complex .
Yes I am a Maratha.
That can be gauged clearly by my reaction to this thread.
I have a genuine question. Is it possible for you to have a normal discussion without getting personal?
Can you debate the post and not the poster? Or his mother?
Cheers, Doc
Last edited:
So Ratan Tata is either retarded or drugged.
C'mon sir watch your language.
After ******* british ****** they were awarded what they have today.
Gujju dikra is trying hard to pass as maratha to hide the face that his bawa ancestors had to get .................they migrated to mumbai in british raj.
Admin note : Some language edited , lets keep talk of other places and activities away.
Please report any content , also if you don't agree with my intervention .
Last edited by a moderator:
Personal ?? You're the one who's claiming ancestry from an exalted species . Be it the glorious Achaemenids or the Sassanids or what have you or the Marathas now .
Where did I get personal with you or brought in your mother ? If you're referring to our previous interaction , please let me bring back our wonderful exchange on PDF where I couldn't respond in kind to you . The way I see it , we're even . Of course , if you do want renew hostilities , I'm all for it too.
irironically all marathaleader s who are actually of leading stock and liberated india are of Brahmins stock such as peshwa Brahmin migrants from kashmir, up and rajasthan, gujarat.
A Dravidian Brahmins or hindu of punjab have more in common with maratha leaderS both culturrally-religiously than a dikra who left gujrat in 1930s for mumbai.
Mod Edit. Lets not get personal
Last edited by a moderator:
If there is a thread about the conflict between Naga and Kuki tribes, I'm guessing VSDOC will claim to be a Naga.
Guys lets keep the debate a bit more civil without the the use of foul language and getting too personal.
No point killing the poster , when you can easily counter the posts with your facts.
No point killing the poster , when you can easily counter the posts with your facts.
And that gentleman claimed that Hindus ran away from a battle with Arabs as part of an alliance with parsis. the truth is that when Islam had expanded even to Europe and taken over Spain, they had to fight for another two and half centuries to even reach Indian borders.
The movie posters says-Panipat The Great Betrayal.
Let us now debate who betrayed whom? did marathas lose the war due to betrayal by Holkars who worked hand in glove with Najib-ud-dolla? did they lose it because other Hindu kings did not support Marathas? Did they lose it because of Nawab of Awadh- A Shia who sided with Sunni Rohillas and Abdali by providing them money and logistics? Did they lose the battle because Sikh ruler of Patiala was providing logistics to Abdali? Did they lose it because Maharaja Surajmal was forced to leave the Maratha camp by the game played by Holkars to help Najib-ud-dolla? Did they lose it because of having a very large entourage of non combatants who became a big problem for them? Did they lose it because of their own acts of making Hindus suffer? OR Did they lose it by compromising their own principles and tactics? Or did something very unexpected happen on that day in the battle which turned it upside down?
let us debate it now.
Let us now debate who betrayed whom? did marathas lose the war due to betrayal by Holkars who worked hand in glove with Najib-ud-dolla? did they lose it because other Hindu kings did not support Marathas? Did they lose it because of Nawab of Awadh- A Shia who sided with Sunni Rohillas and Abdali by providing them money and logistics? Did they lose the battle because Sikh ruler of Patiala was providing logistics to Abdali? Did they lose it because Maharaja Surajmal was forced to leave the Maratha camp by the game played by Holkars to help Najib-ud-dolla? Did they lose it because of having a very large entourage of non combatants who became a big problem for them? Did they lose it because of their own acts of making Hindus suffer? OR Did they lose it by compromising their own principles and tactics? Or did something very unexpected happen on that day in the battle which turned it upside down?
let us debate it now.
Only 2 people group were able to defeat Arabs.
1) Franks
2) Indian arajput brahman Kong's o
Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761: An Authentic Account of the Panipat Campaign solstice at panipat 14 january 1761 - Google Search
This is a very interesting book on the 3rd War fought at Panipat by an amateur historian with hitherto unreported sources from the Maratha Bakhars & the Nawab of Awadh's Chroniclers shedding new light on the conflict .
I've read this book nearly a decade ago. It's a wonderful read
Let us start from the wrong policies followed by Marathas of leving taxes on Hindu Kings which resulted in misery to poor hindu farmers.
This was a contributing factor only to the point that Hindu kings did not join them in the battle. If Hindu kings too had taken it as a Dharmayudh and committed all their forces the way Muslims of Subcontinent did for this battle, There would have been no battle and Abdali would have ran away to Afghanistan. In his five forays into India, He never travelled south of Delhi for the fear of Marathas and Rajput kings. Punjab and Delhi was easy for him as the sikhs had yet to emerge as a potent force and they were divided in misals which usually fought each other more than fighting the muslims.
Every muslim king of India was arrayed against Marathas except for Asaf Jah-1 while not even one Hindu king was allied with Marathas. The only Hindu King who went to support them in the battle was made to leave the camp due to the rivalry between Scindhias and Holkars and the secret deal which Holkars had with Najib-ud-dolla.
If we study the battle, we find that it was not a factor for the defeat. It could have added to their immense strength but was not a factor which contributed to the defeat. Marathas inspite of all their fault were still a very formidable battle force in Panipat who could single handedly take on the combined might of all muslim invaders and resident muslims.
This was a contributing factor only to the point that Hindu kings did not join them in the battle. If Hindu kings too had taken it as a Dharmayudh and committed all their forces the way Muslims of Subcontinent did for this battle, There would have been no battle and Abdali would have ran away to Afghanistan. In his five forays into India, He never travelled south of Delhi for the fear of Marathas and Rajput kings. Punjab and Delhi was easy for him as the sikhs had yet to emerge as a potent force and they were divided in misals which usually fought each other more than fighting the muslims.
Every muslim king of India was arrayed against Marathas except for Asaf Jah-1 while not even one Hindu king was allied with Marathas. The only Hindu King who went to support them in the battle was made to leave the camp due to the rivalry between Scindhias and Holkars and the secret deal which Holkars had with Najib-ud-dolla.
If we study the battle, we find that it was not a factor for the defeat. It could have added to their immense strength but was not a factor which contributed to the defeat. Marathas inspite of all their fault were still a very formidable battle force in Panipat who could single handedly take on the combined might of all muslim invaders and resident muslims.
In one single battle, we would have got rid of muslims kings forever and created a true Hindu Rashtra which was the dream of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.