Why Dharmic people are the best warriors.

[EDLdefence]

Dharmic people are the best warriors in the universe. Their track record of being conquered by Muslims and the British speaks for itself.

I wish I could one day become as brave and independent as a dharmic warrior.

They put up a fight unlike some of the other territories we conquered and Dharmic people are not just located in India. Nepal?

I don't know. Not sure.I don't want to comment, in risk of causing offence.

A lot of discussion about colonialism descends to both Indian and British both sides wildly exaggerating the benefits and the negatives.

Truth lies somewhere between.

But when I read BBC News and Guardian and I look at the comments section, there seems to be this level of hostility towards India and Indians that I find hard to comprehend.

Since a lot of the legal systems, philosophies I come to admire are British.

It confuses me :/

Agreed, most of those comments you will come across on news websites come from the older generation and they are generally extremely grumpy and critical of anything that is different from their culture. Ignore them.

 

[jatt+gutts]

dharmic people are good warriors but we never show unified front. we are always fighting among ourselves. if one kingdom is fighting with foreigners other will align with them for their petty interests. now we are all united and indias power is growing.

 

[EDLdefence]

@Ravi Nair
And how can we be anti India if we have 1.6 million Indians in the UK?

 

[Chronos]

@Ravi Nair
And how can we be anti India if we have 1.6 million Indians in the UK?

That's true. Though that's too many

But no, a lot of the comment in India based stories and I do mean the majority of them tends to be either snarky or outright hateful. Lots of comments about caste system, poverty etc.

These are true statements, but intent is what counts.

I was just wondering if indians just ruined their reputation by benefit fraud or something.

 

[jbond197]

dharmic people are good warriors but we never show unified front. we are always fighting among ourselves. if one kingdom is fighting with foreigners other will align with them for their petty interests. now we are all united and indias power is growing.

True. Had Sikhs, Rajputs, Marathas, Jats and South Indian Kingdoms like Cholas etc stood together against the invading forces then the story of the land of dharma would have been completely different. We could have prevented a lot of issues the whole region including Afghanistan is facing today.

 

[priti]

ISlam is a foreign predatory cult.

 

[HAIDER]

ISlam is a foreign predatory cult.

Hindu perception ? , Chankia was Hindu or foreigner ?

 

[faithfulguy]

Same can be said about China as well ...... But difference between Europe or desert and India/china is that India and China are from same civilization and stayed united through out the history more often.

There was not a country called India until 1947. India as a country or empire or kingdom didn't not existed until British created it. Prior to that India was a geographical expression such as Arabia, Balkans or Central Asia.

 

[jaibi]

I think culture has a lot to do with it.

Quite a difference between, my shy and reserved South Indian style with the boisterous nature of Punjabis.

We would think so, would we not? However, culture itself is arbitrary so there is no such thing as a 'better' culture. Unfortunately, us south asians have this layer of segmented (casted) thinking amongst us. A Bengali can be as good a warrior as a Punjabi, it's only that the Punjabi society placed more value on it and thus, you see a greater motivation here for it (I'm a Punjabi too). Genetically, physically there is no other reason.

 

[Indos]

Various empires such as the CHOLA EMPIRE have ruled from India to Indonesia and Malaysia, these where made up off TAMIL WARRIORS.

Nope, we, Indonesian only get ruled by Dutch and Japanese...and it was because we are not united. Only two kingdom can rule United Indonesia, and they are all Indonesian, first Sriwijaya (Sumatra Kingdom) and second Majapahit (Java Kingdom). History should be learned by fact...not just a story. There were many wars in the past, but if you said Chola ruled Indonesia sometimes ago, it is really really wrong.

 

[Indischer]

We would think so, would we not? However, culture itself is arbitrary so there is no such thing as a 'better' culture. Unfortunately, us south asians have this layer of segmented (casted) thinking amongst us. A Bengali can be as good a warrior as a Punjabi, it's only that the Punjabi society placed more value on it and thus, you see a greater motivation here for it (I'm a Punjabi too). Genetically, physically there is no other reason.

I feel that although there's no such that as a 'good' culture overall, there is no denying that the degree to which cultures embrace certain aspects of human emotions vary. Included in this metric are aggression and warfare.

How can a guy who's been taught from Day1 that all life is sacred and harming any lifeform, irrespective of it's size, ever hope to become great at warfare unless he rejects/totally ignores his former schooling?(Ref here is to the Jains). Similarly, there are a few other cultures where family honour means everything and shedding/giving blood for such a cause is the most natural thing to do. Don't you think a few such differences need to be acknowledged(albeit without getting into the British definitions of who were a Martial race and who weren't)?

 

[jaibi]

The aspect that I have highlighted is that yes, culture is important; however, it is arbitrary. It's not set in stone, it changes in the interactions with the environment. Thus, 'belonging' to a culture does not make one a better warrior because it can change. Take Japan, they successfully challenged the West during the WWII, were the first Asian power to defeat a European power in the 20th century. Post-WWII turned to economics and became more pacifistic, they still remain Japanese. Similarly, Germans or whole of Europe, colonise the world, during and post-Cold war, turn to civics, focus on liberal democracy, still remain Europeans.

Culture is not as permanant as we expect it to be. It changes.

I feel that although there's no such that as a 'good' culture overall, there is no denying that the degree to which cultures embrace certain aspects of human emotions vary. Included in this metric are aggression and warfare.

How can a guy who's been taught from Day1 that all life is sacred and harming any lifeform, irrespective of it's size, ever hope to become great at warfare unless he rejects/totally ignores his former schooling?(Ref here is to the Jains). Similarly, there are a few other cultures where family honour means everything and shedding/giving blood for such a cause is the most natural thing to do. Don't you think a few such differences need to be acknowledged(albeit without getting into the British definitions of who were a Martial race and who weren't)?