Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
He was a Pan-Islamist till his last breath, the closest "nationalism" we can find in his works is this
View attachment 635136
So, not really nationalistic, in fact rejects nationalism and call for Islamic unity but Nations must focus on themselves temporarily and an eternal unity afterwards.
And you're correct, he was not a secularist in any sense, he defends old laws and criticise some of the laws like the equality between men and women in inheritance and related matters for instance.
View attachment 635137
Furthermore, the nature of the website is irrelevant as the quotes are not falsified and independently verifiable.
View attachment 635138
View attachment 635139
View attachment 635140
You're forgetting that "Muslim" Nizam was more stable and permanent ally of the British than the Marathas, he supplied at least 16,000 numbered force to the British in the siege of Seringapatam (1799).
@Nilgiri @Joe Shearer
LOL.
@masterchief_mirza is a nice, reasonable and invariably polite discussant, and has more knowledge of history than the average man in the street, but this is finally fairly shallow, and does not stand strong scrutiny.
You are right in what you said, and in the support that the Marathas (ironically, in terms of what was to ensue between the British and the Marathas, and the role played by Arthur Wellesley, a young major who did very badly in the wars with Tipu, in those) and the Nizam gave the British. As I write this, I am sitting less than 5 kms from Bolarum, the site of the British Residency in Hyderabad, and opposite Risalla Bazar, next to Pioneer Bazar, from where the British Resident kept a watchful eye on the Nizam. As long as that potentate spent his time exercising his stable of concubines, he was safe on his throne; any movement towards independent thought was instantly visited by most unwelcome attention.
Marathas might have allied with the British is because they might have wanted to end the Mysore empire. Simple regional politics. And that's what happened. The Mysore state was distributed among the Marathas, British and the Nizam. It's certainly not unprecedented. We see a role reversal a few years prior to that event in the 3rd Battle of Panipat.
Yes, Maratha Mysore relations were not amiable in any sense and both were constantly fighting with each other even before the British came into the picture. So it's not like a friend betrayed his friend.
A more accurate betrayal would be Mir Sadiq who was Tipu Sultan's chief minister who was colluding with the British.
You mentioned that Marathas made an informed decision that future with British co-rule or under them would serve the interest of the Marathas. If that was the case, Lord Wellesley wouldn't have regarded the Second Anglo Maratha war (Marathas won the first Anglo Maratha war) that he fought as the toughest of all his battles. (He was part of the 4th Anglo-Mysore war and was also the same guy who handed the defeat to Napolean at Waterloo. He rated the the Battle of Assaye in the 2nd Anglo Maratha war above the one at Waterloo and the toughest. The Marathas on their part considered it neither as a win or a loss though the Britishers considered it as a victory.)
Yes, you are quite clearly making distinctions based on religion. In this thread alone, you mentioned Marathas as backstabbers in 3 separate posts while conveniently failing to mention the Nizam in even one of those 3 posts. You only accepted and mentioned Nizam when it was pointed out to you by @Naofumi and @Joe Shearer. In fact, as @Joe Shearer gave a detailed account of the numbers, there was actually no Maratha present during the Siege of Seringapatam where Tipu Sultan lost his life. At least, that's what I could gather from his post (which are many times hard to understand).
Coming back to the Marathas, don't forget that the Marathas checked Portugese expansion from the West. For all intents and purposes, the Portugese were more brutal than the British.
Also, Tipu Sultan too had taken some help from the French which too was a colonial power, not a major one in India probably but definitely in other parts of the world. I respect Tipu Sultan for his brave fight against the British and I'm not saying what the Marathas and Nizam did was right but it was done for their own self-interests of those times.
You are right in analysing my answer. I am unaware of any Maratha soldiery physically present. Their light cavalry, their bargis, may have provided cover to the besieging forces from some slight distance; they did not fight in the breach.
The numbers are percentages, I hope you noticed that, not actual numbers. You have to divide by two to get the actual numbers. So 44 is 44% of the 50,000 assembled, and 22,000 men.
And I hope Turkey does not and will not rethink it's relations with India. It will continue to side ferociously with Pakistan. Only Muslim countries like UAE, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran can be double faced bastards and be pro India. Turkey is secular. Turkey emphasises nationalism. Turks know they have much to lose over 70 years relationship with not much to gain as Turkish Industry is competeting with Indian industry.
Note for the Pakistani's. some of the most ardent pro Pakistan Turks are athiest, uber Turkic Kemalists. And may they long live in Turkey.
View attachment 635169
You must forgive me for wishing equally hard that Ataturk's Turkey should be with India.
Eid Mubarak.
I'm not though. Plenty of Muslim traitors existed, including the nizam's forces who allied with the marathas and British against Tipu. Not sure how I can be more clear than this. I suspect it bugs you that Pakistanis don't actually conform to the ISIS type ummah chummah musulmans that the Indian state has deliberately nurtured over the years, ostensibly to allow Delhi to very easily villify them when necessary, yet simultaneously trick them with theology-based arguments as to why "Pakistan is evil". When it suits you, you teach Indian Muslims that Pakistanis are "unislamic" and "heretics" and Indian Muslims are true. Otherwise, you riot in their neighbourhood because they're too overtly "Muslim". They can't win.
I'll say it again (and for the record I was well aware before you or Joe or anyone else "informed" me) - plenty of Muslim traitors aligned against Tipu. Doesn't hurt me one bit to say so either.
Did you never watch the serial with Sanjay Khan?
This is frankly quite a bizarre argument. Are you also implying that I don't think there are countless modern Muslims who are completely loyal to non-Muslim majority nations?
So you're saying pragmatism in wartime is all that mattered rather than loyalty to sons of the soil. That's debatable but certainly Tipu had loyal Hindu aides and senior staff throughout his rule, not just as a last minute manipulation against Britain.
It cannot be denied that your grip on historical fact exceeds the common joe, if I might be permitted a turn of phrase. The Hindu ministers of Tipu were ironically the linchpins of the succeeding (restored) Maharaja's regime.
I'm not though. Plenty of Muslim traitors existed, including the nizam's forces who allied with the marathas and British against Tipu. Not sure how I can be more clear than this. I suspect it bugs you that Pakistanis don't actually conform to the ISIS type ummah chummah musulmans that the Indian state has deliberately nurtured over the years, ostensibly to allow Delhi to very easily villify them when necessary, yet simultaneously trick them with theology-based arguments as to why "Pakistan is evil". When it suits you, you teach Indian Muslims that Pakistanis are "unislamic" and "heretics" and Indian Muslims are true. Otherwise, you riot in their neighbourhood because they're too overtly "Muslim". They can't win.
I'll say it again (and for the record I was well aware before you or Joe or anyone else "informed" me) - plenty of Muslim traitors aligned against Tipu. Doesn't hurt me one bit to say so either.
Did you never watch the serial with Sanjay Khan?
This is frankly quite a bizarre argument. Are you also implying that I don't think there are countless modern Muslims who are completely loyal to non-Muslim majority nations?
So you're saying pragmatism in wartime is all that mattered rather than loyalty to sons of the soil. That's debatable but certainly Tipu had loyal Hindu aides and senior staff throughout his rule, not just as a last minute manipulation against Britain.
The serial with Sanjay Khan?
Ye Gods and little pink and light brown cherubs!