03-09-2005, 03:48 AM
Kanu wrote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We didnt follow the guidelines of the Mahabharata. Krishna said that when there is war, then fight it in its totallity. Once someone breaks into your house to harm you then you have the right to totally destroy him.
We choose to feed our egos and let go of the maniacs that sought to destroy us, and we paid for that for losing out on almost a millenia of civilizational development.
Now lets look at why Shivaji was more succesful. The fact was that muslims now became part of the subcontinent, Shivaji knew he would have to live with that fact and he had muslims fighting in his army, that is why he didnt seek to eliminate them all. The situation had changed, in 1191 the scenario was different from the time of the Mughal-Maratha conflict.
Shivaji did however fight a more total war, in the sense that he didnt care about rules. When the muslims took advantage of Hindu benevolence by stabbing us in the back in 1192 they won. Simillarily Shivaji used brahminbania cunningnes to kill Afzal Khan with the nails of steel. In war rules rarely matter as long as you win. The only ways Pritvhi could be beaten was by treachery so that is what was done, the only way Aurangzeb could be torn a new asshole was by cunning so that was what was done as well. Both times the war was thrust on the Hindus, the first time we lived under delusional moral laws by incorrectly interpretating our own texts, the second time we were sure not to repeat the same mistake. Hopefully we are not repeating the same mistake today b/c the war isnt won yet, there is still a few more acts left to go.
The winner is alive to discuss morality, the loser is usually dead. So better to win and worry about morals later.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We didnt follow the guidelines of the Mahabharata. Krishna said that when there is war, then fight it in its totallity. Once someone breaks into your house to harm you then you have the right to totally destroy him.
We choose to feed our egos and let go of the maniacs that sought to destroy us, and we paid for that for losing out on almost a millenia of civilizational development.
Now lets look at why Shivaji was more succesful. The fact was that muslims now became part of the subcontinent, Shivaji knew he would have to live with that fact and he had muslims fighting in his army, that is why he didnt seek to eliminate them all. The situation had changed, in 1191 the scenario was different from the time of the Mughal-Maratha conflict.
Shivaji did however fight a more total war, in the sense that he didnt care about rules. When the muslims took advantage of Hindu benevolence by stabbing us in the back in 1192 they won. Simillarily Shivaji used brahminbania cunningnes to kill Afzal Khan with the nails of steel. In war rules rarely matter as long as you win. The only ways Pritvhi could be beaten was by treachery so that is what was done, the only way Aurangzeb could be torn a new asshole was by cunning so that was what was done as well. Both times the war was thrust on the Hindus, the first time we lived under delusional moral laws by incorrectly interpretating our own texts, the second time we were sure not to repeat the same mistake. Hopefully we are not repeating the same mistake today b/c the war isnt won yet, there is still a few more acts left to go.
The winner is alive to discuss morality, the loser is usually dead. So better to win and worry about morals later.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->