masterchief_mirza
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2019
- Messages
- 9,706
- Reaction score
- 17
- Country
- Location
Inability to resist colonialism by distant powers is totally different to active backstabbing against local rivals. Local rivals - when they fight each other - have vested interests in local issues and hence motivations are those for some kind of sustained and sustainable takeover. European colonialism was smash n grab. Look at the Spanish in south America for example. Motivations are different. I really shouldn't need to explain this. Moreover, different local city states vying for local control is fair game and a natural progression of the history of nations.Ok, at that time the Maratha state and the state of Mysore didn't exactly have cordial relations. You are looking at history from 200 years in advance. This means you know what happened in the future post the Mysore British wars and the Maratha British wars. The Marathas never imagined that the British would rule the entire India in just a few years. You know what happened, but people in that era didn't. In hindsight, we can say that yes, the Marathas and in fact all the kingdoms in India should've fought in a united manner against the British. Then they could resume whatever quarrels they have among themselves.
And it's not like the Marathas didn't fight with the British. The Marathas and British fought 3 wars in total.
By your logic, all the Indians in the British Army(significant proportion being the Punjabis) are traitors and should not be celebrated. They indeed are in a sense but you'll see these people in the Army were serving the Indian and Pakistani army post independence.
Also, in the Battle of Talikota that @MayaBazar referenced in which the Sultanates joined together against the Vijaynagar Empire, unfortunately the Marathas sided with the Sultans. (many Maratha soldiers in the Sultanate armies). I hope you call them backstabbers there as well as the local Sultanates were foreigners fighting against indigenous local kingdoms.
And if you go further back, I hope you call your Punjabi kin as backstabbers who couldn't put up decent resistance against the invaders. In fact, there's nothing much to show for from the indigenous people of your region.
Can the entire population of the subcontinent (excluding perhaps the deccan peninsula and the ancient IVC who actually resisted them) be regarded specifically as "backstabbers" for capitulating to the Aryan invaders and moreover accepting them as a superior race dominant over native peoples for all eternity?
Of course you're trying to oversimplify the terminology and extrapolate definitions for obvious reasons. The one reasonable argument that could come out of this is that the marathas simply made an informed decision that a future with British co-rule or even under them served their interests better than a future with or under mysoreans or other local empires. It's still regarded as collusion with a foreign enemy but I can see the justification in arbitrary terms. Then the question arises: were the mysoreans so terrible and brutal towards marathas to earn such a fate? Feel free to explain this to me as I genuinely am not that clued up on that much of maratha-mysorean interactions.
Maybe the British Christians were simply a better option at the time.
Not forgetting. I'm well aware of these traitors also. You honestly think I'm making distinctions on the basis of religion?You're forgetting that "Muslim" Nizam was more stable and permanent ally of the British than the Marathas,
This is the error greatmaratha also makes with me.
I'm pointing out that certain groups in the subcontinent drew a line at seeking support from those who were looters whereas some were happy to collude despite knowing full well the person they're colluding with would vassalise their state and guarantee foreign subservience.
Let him prove right by posting even just one statement of Jinnah where he said that Pakistan will be a secular state ----