12-08-2006, 09:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I will give you an example. I recently learnt that in TamilNadu Brahmins were beaten up during the Dravidian movement of idiots like Periyar etc. The situation became so bad that lot of Brahmins migrated out of TN to places like Maharashtra etc even where the Marathis created trouble for them.
Now replace Brahmins with say rajputs. There is nothing on earth which can compel a rajput to leave his birthplace, if being asked to vacate forcibly without a solid fight, which might continue for generations. Other Kshatriya groups and Sikhs are of the same mold though the intensity may vary.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again if things are in the blood then where were Rajputs during the British rule?
If indeed it is through blood that you get bravery then why didn't despite having the required blood the Rajputs didn't produce many freedom fighters against the British?
By the same token Bengal has a very poor track record of resistance to Muslims but has an excellent track record against the Brits, so how did that happen, did all Bengalis have new blood infused into their veins so that it pumped up bravery in them suddenly?
As for rajputs never leaving their birth place, sure they did, you ever heard of partition?
I am sure some Rajputs left their homes in Pakistan along with the millions of Sikhs.
You ever heard of the Rajput traitors that gave their daughters to Muslims?
And what did the Sikh loss have anything to do with what I said, the Sikhs were seen as more reliable after they helped the British in 1857 along with the Gurkhas so they were made a privileged group by targeting them heavily for British army recruitment, the same was done later with Punjabi Muslims.
To say that blood gives you bravery is basically saying that it's genetics, that maybe the case but we have no supporting data to back it up, the case of Tamils in Srilanka is an example, the group was considered non martial and bookish until LTTE came up, did the Tamils suddenly get martial blood infused into them through blood trasnfusions which made them pick up arms?
Now replace Brahmins with say rajputs. There is nothing on earth which can compel a rajput to leave his birthplace, if being asked to vacate forcibly without a solid fight, which might continue for generations. Other Kshatriya groups and Sikhs are of the same mold though the intensity may vary.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again if things are in the blood then where were Rajputs during the British rule?
If indeed it is through blood that you get bravery then why didn't despite having the required blood the Rajputs didn't produce many freedom fighters against the British?
By the same token Bengal has a very poor track record of resistance to Muslims but has an excellent track record against the Brits, so how did that happen, did all Bengalis have new blood infused into their veins so that it pumped up bravery in them suddenly?
As for rajputs never leaving their birth place, sure they did, you ever heard of partition?
I am sure some Rajputs left their homes in Pakistan along with the millions of Sikhs.
You ever heard of the Rajput traitors that gave their daughters to Muslims?
And what did the Sikh loss have anything to do with what I said, the Sikhs were seen as more reliable after they helped the British in 1857 along with the Gurkhas so they were made a privileged group by targeting them heavily for British army recruitment, the same was done later with Punjabi Muslims.
To say that blood gives you bravery is basically saying that it's genetics, that maybe the case but we have no supporting data to back it up, the case of Tamils in Srilanka is an example, the group was considered non martial and bookish until LTTE came up, did the Tamils suddenly get martial blood infused into them through blood trasnfusions which made them pick up arms?