11-26-2005, 09:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Nov 26 2005, 10:31 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 26 2005, 10:31 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->who do only bengalis, punjabis and marathis in india know how to stand up and fight??? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
as for Bengal the less said the better, in terms of offering resistance to the Muslims it was the worst state (but they were ahead in fighting the British),
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes. bengal was never a frontier state like say rajasthan and didnt have a clue when the turks arrived. the same can be said of the way vijaynager crumbled at hampi.
but bengalis were streets ahead of everyone else when it came to fighting the brits.
assam/ahom was a frontier state and thus have a 17-0 score line against the muslims, a feat even the rajputs and marathas cant match.
and for whatever they may have done against the dutch, south india did precious little against the poms. one guy who shot someone is the exception that proves the law.
the most perplexing thing is the lack of rajput resistance to th poms, and sometimes even colaboration (eg. scindhia in 1857). maybe fighting the camel jockeys sapped them a bit much.
but i will maintain that the beginning of the problem was the lack of unity amongst the various kings against the camel jockey onslaught.
why wasnt a bismark born in india ???
and i also maintain that the final nail in the coffin of indian misery was the hijacking of the congress party and indian resistance by gandhi and his ahimsha crap. (not to mention that the nehru gandhi dynasty that sprung from all that chaos continues to ail india economically, socially, religiously, culturally, financially and in every way possible).
why doesnt the bjp bury the gandhi family for good. maybe they should expose what the nehruvians did to netaji.
if we had a bloody freedom - and it would have cost a LOT less lives than the "peaceful" freedom we had without comming to know the price of freedom, then india would have been streets ahead of china by today.
as for Bengal the less said the better, in terms of offering resistance to the Muslims it was the worst state (but they were ahead in fighting the British),
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes. bengal was never a frontier state like say rajasthan and didnt have a clue when the turks arrived. the same can be said of the way vijaynager crumbled at hampi.
but bengalis were streets ahead of everyone else when it came to fighting the brits.
assam/ahom was a frontier state and thus have a 17-0 score line against the muslims, a feat even the rajputs and marathas cant match.
and for whatever they may have done against the dutch, south india did precious little against the poms. one guy who shot someone is the exception that proves the law.
the most perplexing thing is the lack of rajput resistance to th poms, and sometimes even colaboration (eg. scindhia in 1857). maybe fighting the camel jockeys sapped them a bit much.
but i will maintain that the beginning of the problem was the lack of unity amongst the various kings against the camel jockey onslaught.
why wasnt a bismark born in india ???
and i also maintain that the final nail in the coffin of indian misery was the hijacking of the congress party and indian resistance by gandhi and his ahimsha crap. (not to mention that the nehru gandhi dynasty that sprung from all that chaos continues to ail india economically, socially, religiously, culturally, financially and in every way possible).
why doesnt the bjp bury the gandhi family for good. maybe they should expose what the nehruvians did to netaji.
if we had a bloody freedom - and it would have cost a LOT less lives than the "peaceful" freedom we had without comming to know the price of freedom, then india would have been streets ahead of china by today.