11-17-2006, 09:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2006, 09:44 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
How could Jai Singh share any commonality with Muslims, people who were oppressing and terrorising his community?
Do you ask if the Jews had any commonalities with Nazis under Hitler?
The Muslims were the opressors not Sawai Jai Singh and no self respecting Hindu of those times would go around trying to act as if he and the Muslims belonged to one nation while the former were trying to root out Hindus.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if the Marathas gained the upper hand, considering the way they handled conquered provinces, you would agree that it seems unimaginable that they would have been able to govern them properly. Can you imagine India wide railroads, common postal system, telegraphy, common civil service comign in place within another 100-120 years in this kind of background.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did the Brits govern us properly?
How many famines happened under the British and how many millions died because of British greed?
Compared to that, I am pretty sure Marathas would have done much better.
And colonialism is not prerequisite for railways or the other things you mention, countries like Japan which didn't have colonialism as we did also have these things today.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did he share a sense of commonality with any Mussalman of those times. Now maybe these are different perspectives in which we view things. Is being Hindu alone fully define being Indian, which would mean other religions count for nothing. Anyways this is a wholly different debate. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I already answered this, no he did not share any commonality with bigots who were oppressing members of his community.
You were the one who brought up the topic about commonality between a "Jat and a Tamil", I said yes they knew what they had in common, I never said that the Hindus and Muslims shared anything in common but the Hindu community (who formed the bulk of Jats and Tamils of those times) knew what they had in common despite linguistic differences.
Let me make it clear, the majority of Indians of those times (except the Muslims and Christians) knew what they had in common, Hindus formed the bulk of the population (over 80%) and had a shared culture, even the Sikhs knew what they had in common with Hindus which was why they made cow slaughter punishable with death when they gained power and invaded Kashmir upon the request of the KP's.
By the same token how many Hindus and Muslims saw themselves as being one nation under the British, after all if they saw it that way then we wouldn't have hade partition in the first place, anyway Islam effectively bars any such thinking of common nationality between Muslims and kafirs, so what didn't happen in the last 1000 years will not happen in the ensuing 1000 years.
Do you ask if the Jews had any commonalities with Nazis under Hitler?
The Muslims were the opressors not Sawai Jai Singh and no self respecting Hindu of those times would go around trying to act as if he and the Muslims belonged to one nation while the former were trying to root out Hindus.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if the Marathas gained the upper hand, considering the way they handled conquered provinces, you would agree that it seems unimaginable that they would have been able to govern them properly. Can you imagine India wide railroads, common postal system, telegraphy, common civil service comign in place within another 100-120 years in this kind of background.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did the Brits govern us properly?
How many famines happened under the British and how many millions died because of British greed?
Compared to that, I am pretty sure Marathas would have done much better.
And colonialism is not prerequisite for railways or the other things you mention, countries like Japan which didn't have colonialism as we did also have these things today.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did he share a sense of commonality with any Mussalman of those times. Now maybe these are different perspectives in which we view things. Is being Hindu alone fully define being Indian, which would mean other religions count for nothing. Anyways this is a wholly different debate. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I already answered this, no he did not share any commonality with bigots who were oppressing members of his community.
You were the one who brought up the topic about commonality between a "Jat and a Tamil", I said yes they knew what they had in common, I never said that the Hindus and Muslims shared anything in common but the Hindu community (who formed the bulk of Jats and Tamils of those times) knew what they had in common despite linguistic differences.
Let me make it clear, the majority of Indians of those times (except the Muslims and Christians) knew what they had in common, Hindus formed the bulk of the population (over 80%) and had a shared culture, even the Sikhs knew what they had in common with Hindus which was why they made cow slaughter punishable with death when they gained power and invaded Kashmir upon the request of the KP's.
By the same token how many Hindus and Muslims saw themselves as being one nation under the British, after all if they saw it that way then we wouldn't have hade partition in the first place, anyway Islam effectively bars any such thinking of common nationality between Muslims and kafirs, so what didn't happen in the last 1000 years will not happen in the ensuing 1000 years.