Recent Posts
my underwear has a pocket like thing which I think...
rqSFV+
No.365289
Why didn't Handoos resist or fight back the Mughaltards when they were converting and brvtally raping their compatriots? Why did they allow it to happen? I wish I was a Hindu, but my mother and her side of the family won't let me convert.
mBOBV+
No.365291
>>365289(OP)
Low t
S7Hr34
No.365293
>>365289(OP)
Maratha empire existed for a reason since you narthie sissies were so fucking passive against those turkochamaars
7zhGHF
No.365302
q/Mn+m
No.365306
>>365289(OP)
Who said they didn't. While entire western asia got run over by islamist they were restricted by the Rajputs in the western India. They halted them for 300 years.
The very fact that Hindus persist till today is the proof that they kept fighting.
9bofOv
No.365308
In fact it was buddhist who readily collaborated with the islamic forces and converted easily.
WjZ2WO
No.365310
>>365289(OP)
Why don't Mullas get together and finish off Israel once and for all? Those precious little Palestinians are getting buttblasted and btfo for decades now.
Most people are just cattle that won't do shit. Including me.
vJ+Kmq
No.365314
>>365308
Lmaoo,matlab kuch bhi huh. Look at this lodu talking out of his ass
+0O65M
No.365322
>>365289(OP)
>Allow it to happen
This has to be a bait. Rana Sanga defeated Babur twice , Maldeo Rathore fought sher Shah Suri Rana Pratap Singh, Chandrasen Rathore and Surajmal fought dozens of Battles against Mughals , Durgadas Rathore , Rana Gaj Singh, Rana Udai singh Rana Sujan Singh, Kunwar Bhimsen Sawai Raja Jai singh, list keeps going on on and on. Sometimes we won Sometimes we lost and this is just in Rajasthan. Hindus have been the greatest foes to islam comparable to Spanish and Slavs , we fought muslims for 1000 years and are still fighting.
+0O65M
No.365324
>>365314
Not inaccurate. I think he is talking abt Raja Dahir's buddhist subjects.
+0O65M
No.365329
>>365306
Correction: not just rajputs. Arabs also fought naval battles with Chalukyas under pulakesin and kashmiris under karakotas.
B6ZTN7
No.365334
>>365289(OP)
Learn how empires are structured retard. Learn what makes them different from a kingdom.
Ay3not
No.365341
>>365289(OP)
Because most of the brvtally raped were dalit/shudra. Most UCs had no problems with muslims. In fact they joined hands with muthleems, received key administrative roles, and even intermarried with them (like rajputs)
hvxk7F
No.365344
80% of the converts were buddhist/dalit/rapebabies in past
Most of the Hindu converts even to this day preserve their lineage
hvxk7F
No.365348
>>365341
Intermarriages weren't one sided like the way lib-left shows
>In fact they joined hands with muthleems, received key administrative roles
Only Kayasthas & Rajputs joined hand with muslims
Ay3not
No.365361
>>365348
>Intermarriages weren't one sided like the way lib-left shows
It was massively biased in favor of muthleems. Muslim woman hindu man were very rare exceptions
>Only Kayasthas & Rajputs joined hand with muslims
Baniyas funded mughals and brahmins served as bureaucrats, administrators, etc under them
3d2OKf
No.365364
>>365361
dwijas betrayed us many times. We will remember this.
wYPXTz
No.365365
>>365361
True cause unlike the opposite hindus saw muslims as untouchable , so concubinage of muslim women was acceptable and well practiced . Marriage usually led to severe chaos case in point, Raja Ganesh of Bengal.
Ay3not
No.365367
>>365365
>hindus saw muslims as untouchable
If that was the case no hindu woman would have been given away for marriage with muslims
wYPXTz
No.365369
>>365364
Dwijas also freed you do not forget
3d2OKf
No.365370
>>365367
just a dwija coping
3d2OKf
No.365371
>>365369
if there were no dwijas then we wouldn't have survived ?
7zhGHF
No.365375
3d2OKf
No.365377
its a well known fact that all dwijas, especially rajputs and kayasthas helped mughals establish their rule all over indian by defeating other hindu kings.
It took a shudra Shivaji to eliminate the Muslim influence from deccan india.
3d2OKf
No.365378
>>365377
sry kayasthas are not dwija
Ay3not
No.365382
>>365364
True. Even during the times of british india, most dwijas preferred muslims over the shudra masses
They hoped that UC hindus and muthleems could rule India as equals. But muthleems didnt want equal power sharing, but rather an islamic state where they would be above all hindus like the good ol' days. That is the only reason for hindu muslim conflicts
wYPXTz
No.365383
>>365367
>that was the case no hindu woman would have been given away for marriage with muslims
What makes you think it was consensual or even mattered? Lineage carries on through and always did through sons. Plus it wasn't like jodha akbar but political coercion , give daughter to signal an alliance or just die.
Case in point, Allauddin offered to leave the seige of Ranthambore if Hammirdeva Chauhan gave his daughter for marriage.
He said no, Chauhan lineage died with his last stand.
Bharmal on the other hand gave his dotter (sm say a Persian maid) to akbar because it was more valuable to him to stay alive.
3d2OKf
No.365384
>>365375
islam never attacked with full force during the beginning. And when the Islam got established well in persia and central asia the Rajputs fell down immediately like a house of cards. These sour rajputs helped muslims to defeat other hindus so that no one could claim independence from muslim rule.
wYPXTz
No.365385
>>365371
I wouldn't say that, that is too much of a speculation
hvxk7F
No.365388
>>365375
Raja Dahir's Sindh is the best example of it
Dumb Buddhists really thought that some foreigner that too barbarous Arabs will free them from the regime of a brahmin ruler, it was the most based moment in subcontinental history when Arabs after the fall of Sindh slayed down all the buddhists
3d2OKf
No.365389
>>365385
then why make that argument in the first place ?
wYPXTz
No.365390
>>365377
Shivaji was not a shudra. He came from a lineage of Kunbi Maratha House of Bhonsles who had already risen high. Plus Chattrapati also allied with Mughals. It was pragmatic statecraft not anything personal
3d2OKf
No.365394
>>365390
they are traditionally shudras. Non-Chitpavan brahmins still consider all maratha clans as shudra.
wYPXTz
No.365396
>>365382
>dwijas preferred muslims over the shudra masses
Any evidence for this? Dwijas created hindu identity for Shudras to tackle islam itself.
3d2OKf
No.365404
>>365396
dwijas were playing from both sides. There more opportunists first, then secondary was their own caste identity (rajputs aided muslims to defeat other rajputs), third was their hindu identity..
mBOBV+
No.365407
>>365388
Arabs were no barbarians, it was just they were less resourceful.
3d2OKf
No.365409
>>365407
arabs were considered barbarian by persians. They had no culture like africans. Only egypt had some culture.
Ay3not
No.365410
>>365396
>Dwijas created hindu identity for Shudras
Those were the minority.
The dominant political faction at the time (congress) and the urban elite preferred muslims. The muslim loving aspects of bollywood, delhi, congress, etc are all carryovers from this
wYPXTz
No.365412
>>365384
>islam never attacked with full force during the beginning. And when the Islam got established well in persia and central asia the Rajputs fell down immediately like a house of cards.
This is absolutely the worst rubbish if I have ever seen. Arab invasions were brutal but even the smallest brahman dynasty of Sindh gave them huge pain, they attacked india many many times. So did the abbasids and Gaznavdis. Islam already reached Turks in 700 ad but first turkish dynasty was established by a Tajik in 1200 ad after Prithiviraj chauhan lost largely due to treachery (source: Dashrath Sharma) and even after this for decades the sultanate constantly fought with rajputs and Senas and Mountain tribes , smtimes winning and smtimes falling like cards.
hvxk7F
No.365413
>>365407
I don't care, they were based cuz they slayed the buddhists who betrayed the great King Dahir
Dahir was successful in defending his kingdom from first invasion, if it wasn't for treacherous buddhists Sindh would be still standing
wYPXTz
No.365417
>>365388
The kashmiri Tibetan buddhist king who married kota rani also later converted to islam and brought the mirror dynasty by making a general of his as the king. Kota Rani tho killed the guy but damage was done.
wYPXTz
No.365421
>>365389
Same argument you made, Dwijas betrayed us.
wYPXTz
No.365424
>>365394
Brahmins are themsleves partly derived from shudra or avarna tribal priests of the old days. So what?
3d2OKf
No.365426
>>365412
this is cope. You know it, I know it, we all know it.
Hindushahis were keeping them at bay, and when hindushahis fell no Prithvi Chauhans were able to defend. Shattered like a house of glass by the muslim armies from afghanistan.
wYPXTz
No.365434
>>365404
>Rajputs aided other Muslims
So? Hakam khan sur fought in Rana Pratap Singh's armies. Rajputs and Mewatis fought Timurs army. Shivaji had muslim generals, vijaynagar also allied with diff sultanates. It's statecraft nothing personal
3d2OKf
No.365435
>>365421
dwijas were supposed to defend hindu shudras according to hindu law. They preferred being opportunists.
hvxk7F
No.365443
>>365426
Hindu shahis were UC too, TF you kanging about SHUDRA
3d2OKf
No.365444
>>365424
there are no tribal authors of rigveda. All were aryan. And Shudras aren't completely tribal either. There is a difference between Shudra and Avarna/chandala/dasyu.
wYPXTz
No.365445
>>365410
>The dominant political faction at the time (congress) and the urban elite preferred muslims
What the fuck is this even? If Congress prefered muslims why did most muslims always remained aloof to congress?
hvxk7F
No.365450
>>365435
It was dwijas who protected, if muslims got any chance they either forcefully converted or massacred hindus
Many such cases
Ay3not
No.365452
>>365445
>But muthleems didnt want equal power sharing, but rather an islamic state where they would be above all hindus like the good ol' days
wYPXTz
No.365455
>>365426
>this is cope. You know it, I know it, we all know it.
>Hindushahis were keeping them at bay, and when hindushahis fell no Prithvi Chauhans were able to defend.
Conflating 2 different things for 0 reason. Yes hindu shahis also fought muslims a lot but one, the end of Hindu shahis was absolutely pathetic. Ghazni literally fell to his knees seeing the huge army of Hindu shahis and his allies coming but the aally chickened out an ran off otherwise ghazni would be dead meat.
Second, Prithvi Raj chauhan fought muslims many times defeated him, so did his father so did his nana and so did his entire lineage. Ghori even lost to sm queen of Rajputs in Gujrat.
3d2OKf
No.365456
>>365434
now suddenly it turns into "statecraft" the moement it doesn't complies with your narrative ?
>>365443
my point being that when the muslims attacked with full force no kingdom were really able to defend their ground against them. Unlike what the other dwija is claiming that they defended their ground for "500 years". It happened only because muslims never attacked with full force during those 500 years.
3d2OKf
No.365467
>>365450
dwijasonly protected themselves not the shudras. There are no native surviving shudra castes from north-west region (Afghanistan and Pakistan) which exist today in India as Hindus.
wYPXTz
No.365468
>>365444
In that case Brahmins today would have genetic lineage of mostly Bmac or Andronovo but they don't. And as per tribal "Brahmins" we already have mentions in epics of Brahmins married to forest dwellers , like Vishravas.
wYPXTz
No.365472
>>365435
>dwijas were supposed to defend hindu shudras according to hindu law.
This is bs, by middle ages Shudras weren't peasents they also fought in armies (consult satish chandra for this) and who do you think benefited when hindus defeated muslims so many times?
3d2OKf
No.365476
>>365468
we all know that epics are fake. According to epics even a dark skin god krishna is worshipped but we all know the reality that light skin is preferred in hinduism over dark.
Only vedas are related to real life events that too ignoring the mythical part.
wYPXTz
No.365477
>>365456
>now suddenly it turns into "statecraft" the moement it doesn't complies with your narrative ?
When did I ever deny it was statecraft?
>>365456
>my point being that when the muslims attacked with full force no kingdom were really able to defend their ground against them. Unlike what the other dwija is claiming that they defended their ground for "500 years". It happened only because muslims never attacked with full force during those 500 years.
Absolute rubbish. Arabs attacked with land armies through deserts, came deep near Chittor , fought in mountains, in passes, in naval seas.
What else does full force mean?
At this point I'm convinced you are a troll and are just speaking for the sake of it.
3d2OKf
No.365478
>>365472
shudras were used as meatshields in armies. The armyies fought to defend the spaces of dwija people and not the villages of shudras.
wYPXTz
No.365479
>>365467
How can someone be so retarded? You have to be a bhimtal neither are you normal dalit a nor a shudra.
YWGjoz
No.365481
>>365289(OP)
gr8 b8 m8
wYPXTz
No.365485
>>365476
>we all know that epics are fake. According to epics even a dark skin god krishna is worshipped but we all know the reality that light skin is preferred in hinduism over dark.
>Only vedas are related to real life events that too ignoring the mythical part.
Abe chutiye even if you consider the epics as fake atleast use your pea brain to realise if no Brahmin was intermixing with tribals why was this sage married to a rakshas of deep south indian this epic? And why is rigveda more authentic and the epic less if you are removing the supernatural elements.
wYPXTz
No.365488
>>365478
Kill yourself legit thought this chan would have sm interesting discussion once in a while.
3d2OKf
No.365492
>>365477
>When did I ever deny it was statecraft?
then why claim that the moement rajputs fell, whole india surrendered to muslims ? While in reality it were the rajputs who helped muslims defeat other hindu kings througout the country.
>What else does full force mean?
when dahir was attacked the persia was just being conquered by muslims after they defeated the non-muslim king of persia. It took a several hundred years to fully islamize them, and even thene there was huge resistance by local tribes to islam within persia and central asia till 1600 when they got converted into shia islam.
You are making it sound like as if the muslims were attacking with full force during those 500 years of assaults.
