All kings conquer neighboring territories and kill people opposing them. That was the norm.
Why did Asoka attack Kalinga and killed millions? Oriya people must hate him, no? Great king, my foot.
Don't see the hypocrisy?
No, nobody but you sees the 'hypocrisy'.
It was what Asoka did as a result of his repentance after seeing the effects of his war with Kalinga that made him great, not his conduct before or during the war.
There was no similar repentance on Tipu's part. Quite the contrary. He took a decidedly communal view of his attempts to conquer parts of Kerala.
Perhaps that may not be very clear to a pre-determined point of view like yours.
Majority Hindus voted for this genocidal maniac. Bet it includes people from judiciary as well.
On the contrary.
Your ignorance is breath-taking, but presumably that is inspired by your need to paint all things happening in India as black and communalist, bringing India down to a comfortable level of parity. Quite understandable.
A Hindu judge is Hindu first; justice is secondary. They let the Italian marines go so BJP can boast about joining MTCR.
What a half-baked statement. Apparently going into detail is a painful exercise for you. Especially when avoiding that allows a breath-taking drama to be conducted.
Tipu sultan was no doubt a great warrior but calling him terrorist or freedom fighter is totally different. it all depend in which respect you are saying this. If he fought against invading forces? yes he did. Did he surrendered? No, he fought till his last breath. Did he ordered mass execution of minorities? to be very honest i dont have a clue. but if he did then why have you been celebrating his day for past so many years.
Is this situation changing just because of religion if yes then this is gonna be very dangerous for those Muslims living there?
Sensible questions.
I wouldn't describe his worse acts as mass execution of minorities.
When he punished businessmen, as it happened, many of them belonged to the Hindu community; it is traditional for certain groups to be engaged in trade, then and also now. That left a bad taste in many mouths, especially the peculiarly sadistic way in which they were executed, for faults that cannot be rated as capital offences.
Second, when he sought to conquer Kerala, he encountered very stiff resistance, and reacted with vicious and relentless repression. In that case, too, the bulk of those suffered were Hindus; if I remember correctly, they were exclusively Hindus. That, too, does not endear him much to the descendants or to the closely akin of those who suffered. It was a neighbouring state at that, and one presently in the grip of increasing communal strife.
The situation is changiing not because of religion, but because of the efforts of one political party to try to correct what they see as an unnecessary appeasement of Muslims, and the efforts of the other to hold on to those earlier public practices all the more strongly to show that they didn't care, and that they believed the public practices, including glorification of Tipu, as reasonable honour to a patriotic king.
The judges felt that a king is never anything but patriotic; singling him out and honouring him is to ascribe motives that did not go beyond his personal self-interest.
Difficult to come to a conclusion. I myself feel that he was cruel and vindictive; so were other kings of the time. He was obdurate against the British; most others, including the greatest representative of the Muslim community in the Deccan, were busy allying themselves with the British, and joined them in finishing off Tipu. He tried to link up with the French revolutionaries, and his efforts may have been one the strands behind Napoleon's expedition to Egypt; nobody else thought of such fundamental changes in the rules of the game.
Perhaps the judges are right; he doesn't deserve any special treatment, but he should be recognised as a king who fought the British. That is the fact of it. We need to stop there and not interpret that fact in the light of today's quarrels.
And, no, Muslims are not in danger. Not yet. Uncomfortable, perhaps, in danger, no.
There was no India and Pakistan when he was alive and Pakistan (subcontinent Muslims) does have their say for any event happened pre-partition.
Pakistanis does have their say for any event/story which happened pre-partition especially if there is Muslim connection. Now here India may declare him as monarch while at the same time Pakistan may declare him as hero. Just like Allama Iqbal who died before Pakistan came into being but still we consider him as our national hero/poet.
You have a point, but not in the Muslim and Hindu division; in the claiming as a common heritage all who came before partition, including, let me remind you, Asoka.
There have been so many anti-muslim judgements lately it feels like Indian Muslims may turn into separatists by the end of Modi's term. The worst part is judiciary is not even an inch behind in this discrimination.
I find this an obtuse and ill-informed opinion, which is mischievous and nothing more.
I'm not contesting that. I'm just saying IF (hypothetically) Tipu won - the outcome would have been better for all of us, not just for Deccan region. A deferred colonialism maybe, or none at all in our region.
That is certainly a possibility.
Unfortunately, you are determined to see everything through communally tinted lenses. Otherwise you might have paused to consider that the people Tipu attacked stopped the Dutch in their tracks, defeated them at land and in the sea, and drove them off to the Dutch East Indies. What Tipu might well have done, and that is a good point, these Nairs did actually achieve. Not against the British, but an equally formidable opponent who had just finished thrashing the Royal Navy and whose admirals carried a broom tied to their mast as a signal that they had 'swept' the Narrow Sea, the English Channel.
Why should I see him do something
. I'm glad I didn't see that. Always asking for
proof of something that has already happened
. Typical. And I have seen the destroyed places myself. If you want picture proof's then I will provide them. Please don't ask for video evidence
That is a brilliantly bad reason for NOT giving proof.
