What's new

The Story of 300 In India You Probably Didn't know

Yes Shivaji is like Rahul Gandhi, secular.

Do you think otherwise?
How exactly does RG come into the mix?

While I do not question Shivaji's secular credentials - he didn't used the term "Hindutva" which was coined by Savarkar.
But Shivaji used the term "Hindavi Swaraj"
The debate between historians is whether it means "Indian" rule or "Hindu" rule.

Hindavi Swaraj from all indications refers to “indian” or “Hindustani” rule. The concept of “Hindu” (religion) rule was non existent back then, especially when the ranks of Marathas included Muslim generals who fought with them.
Ibrahim Gardi comes to mind.

Shivaji like most other kings of those times was more concerned with attaining power for themselves, sans religious inclinations. This again is evident from the fact that Marathas didn’t shy away from pillaging Hindu areas.

Unless rahul gandhi sacked enemy states temples...

That’s correct. Shivaji was motivated by power, and didn’t discriminate sacking Hindus as he did Muslims.
Not uncommon to other kings of the time.
 
.
Do you think otherwise?
How exactly does RG come into the mix?



Hindavi Swaraj from all indications refers to “indian” or “Hindustani” rule. The concept of “Hindu” (religion) rule was non existent back then, especially when the ranks of Marathas included Muslim generals who fought with them.
Ibrahim Gardi comes to mind.
Yes Shivaji is like Rahul Gandhi, secular.

Aurangzeb had more Hindu elements in his army and administration than any other Mughal rulers before him . That must make Aurangzeb the most secular ruler of India .
 
.
Aurangzeb had more Hindu elements in his army and administration than any other Mughal rulers before him . That must make Aurangzeb the most secular ruler of India .

So which of Shivajis actions indicate that he wanted a “Hindu” Rajya and wasn’t only motivated by power, much like Aurangzeb?
Did Shivaji tax them differently? Did he provide preferential treatment to Hindus? What gives?
I’m actually making the claim that Shivaji being portrayed as the protector and savior of Hindu culture and religion (as mentioned in the video) is false.
Prove me wrong.
 
.
So which of Shivajis actions indicate that he wanted a “Hindu” Rajya and wasn’t only motivated by power, much like Aurangzeb?
Did Shivaji tax them differently? Did he provide preferential treatment to Hindus? What gives?
I’m actually making the claim that Shivaji being portrayed as the protector and savior of Hindu culture and religion (as mentioned in the video) is false.
Prove me wrong.
first of all Shivaji was a Hindu himself and had a traditional Hindu coronation by brahmins .

Secondly establishment of his maratha empire stopped the onslaught and weakened Mughal from north and other muslim empires of the south , at a time at a time when Aurangzeb had imposed Jaziya and was on a conversion spree . Mere arrival of maratha power safeguarded Hindu interest from a religious point of view otherwise ambition of Shivaji was basically political rather than religious .
And then over the years Maratha rulers contributed to Hindu temples and even rebuild broken temples such as kashi Vishwanath something that was impossible at the height of mughal rule or would have been in hypothetical strengthening and expansion of muslim ruled region in indiain in the absence of maratha power . So as founder of maratha empire Shivaji indirectly contributed in protection Hindu religion.
 
. . .
Do you think otherwise?
How exactly does RG come into the mix?



Hindavi Swaraj from all indications refers to “indian” or “Hindustani” rule. The concept of “Hindu” (religion) rule was non existent back then, especially when the ranks of Marathas included Muslim generals who fought with them.
Ibrahim Gardi comes to mind.

Shivaji like most other kings of those times was more concerned with attaining power for themselves, sans religious inclinations. This again is evident from the fact that Marathas didn’t shy away from pillaging Hindu areas.



That’s correct. Shivaji was motivated by power, and didn’t discriminate sacking Hindus as he did Muslims.
Not uncommon to other kings of the time.
That's correct, nobody was thinking and acting on the basis of religion.

The battle in which Tipu Sultan was defeated and killed by British forces wouldn't be possible if marathas and other nawabs of South didn't have attacked from other sides.

Even most of the victories which were brought into the accounts of Akbar were won by hindu General of Akbar's army.
 
.
same marathan who lost to 1lakh Afghans in pani pat 3 while they were approximately 7 lakhs.


You failed to read properly as usual. The huge number on the Maratha side consisted of women, old men and children. The Marathas sustained heavy losses because they tried to protect them as the innocent civilians were targeted by the Afghans...Don't forget Marathas came back a decade later I believe and finished their unfinished business
 
.
You failed to read properly as usual. The huge number on the Maratha side consisted of women, old men and children. The Marathas sustained heavy losses because they tried to protect them as the innocent civilians were targeted by the Afghans...Don't forget Marathas came back a decade later I believe and finished their unfinished business

Load of crap. Why add number of civilians to size of Maratha army if they are old men and children who contribute nothing to war effort? Just a maneuver to save face!
 
.
Load of crap. Why add number of civilians to size of Maratha army if they are old men and children who contribute nothing to war effort? Just a maneuver to save face!


Dude the the actual historical accounts, it was recorded even with Muslim chroniclers if you don't believe the Hindu versions! Jesus, guys like you post on this website and have no clue what happened. GTFOH!!
 
.
You failed to read properly as usual. The huge number on the Maratha side consisted of women, old men and children. The Marathas sustained heavy losses because they tried to protect them as the innocent civilians were targeted by the Afghans...Don't forget Marathas came back a decade later I believe and finished their unfinished business
So marathas went to pani pat (hostile territory) with women childrens and old men ?
 
.
Dude the the actual historical accounts, it was recorded even with Muslim chroniclers if you don't believe the Hindu versions! Jesus, guys like you post on this website and have no clue what happened. GTFOH!!

No Muslim chronicler wrote there were 700000 old men and children. What's your source? Don't tell me it's Wiki.
 
.
.
Load of crap. Why add number of civilians to size of Maratha army if they are old men and children who contribute nothing to war effort? Just a maneuver to save face!
So marathas went to pani pat (hostile territory) with women childrens and old men ?
Those women children and old men had for pilgrimage in the temples of Uttar Pradesh . They tied down maratha army and restricted it's movement . Also betrayal local cheiftian Najib khan rohilla made their escape impossible .

 
.
Those women children and old men had for pilgrimage in the temples of Uttar Pradesh . They tied down maratha army and restricted it's movement . Also betrayal local cheiftian Najib khan rohilla made their escape impossible .

so what you are saying rohilla ditched marathas ( as far i know they were already at war with them) .
.
.
who send lakhs of women and children to a hostile territory like up ?
what a coincidence they all end up in pani pat which is well known battle ground .
sounds like a face saving story .
.
.
marathas are use to of fighting mughals who hire mercenaries , some from here some from there etc in their army.
they underestimated afghans who were hardcore fighters .

..





Read how and why it happened if you choose to know the truth..
Mughals ask for afghan help.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom