New Bollywood movie portrays Ahmad Shah Durrani as a barbarian

[Pakistanian]

What do you guys about Bollywood's new movie portraying Abdali as barbaric invader? Many Pashtuns are offended and the government of Afghanistan isn't happy either.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...shah-abdali-in-panipat/videoshow/71965683.cms
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ahmad Shah Abdali - Death strikes where his shadow falls.<br>Panipat trailer out tomorrow. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PanipatLook?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PanipatLook</a><a href="https://twitter.com/arjunk26?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@arjunk26</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/kritisanon?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@kritisanon</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/AshGowariker?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AshGowariker</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SunitaGowariker?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SunitaGowariker</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/RohitShelatkar?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RohitShelatkar</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ckmurali_dop?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ckmurali_dop</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NitinDesai?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NitinDesai</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/neeta_lulla?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@neeta_lulla</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/KolhapureP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KolhapureP</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Mohnish_Bahl?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mohnish_Bahl</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ZeenatAman?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ZeenatAman</a> <a href="https://t.co/gPr0uSFh04">pic.twitter.com/gPr0uSFh04</a></p>— Sanjay Dutt (@duttsanjay) <a href="https://twitter.com/duttsanjay/status/1191210862519947264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


I personally think Bollywood is just trying profit off of Islamophobia and the good old Muslim invader trope. Many Sikhs are supportive of this movie cause they believe Durrani was indeed a barbarian but you'd never see Bollywood make a movie portraying Ranjit Singh as a genocidal warlord when he did exactly the same to Muslims in Kashmir and Punjab

 

[Pakistanian]

Ahmad Shah Abdali was the founder of the modern Afghan nation so Bollywood disrespecting him can't be a good thing for Indo-Afghan relations.

 

[Hitman]

So what exactly was Abdali? A saint or a humanitarian? Have a look at what Hassan Nisar says about Ahmed Shah Abdali in the below clip from 15:32 -

 

[Pakistanian]

So what exactly was Abdali? A saint or a humanitarian? Have a look at what Hassan Nisar says about Ahmed Shah Abdali in the below clip from 15:32 -

He's a secular Punjabi neo-nationalist, they worship Ranjit Singh. I consider him part of the Tarek Fateh school of thought.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I hope Bollywood doesn't alter historical facts in this movie that could hurt feelings of a friendly nation. Abdali was the founder of greater Afghanistan and no true Afghan would allow anyone disrespect their founding fathers. <a href="https://t.co/HvR0yA90UZ">https://t.co/HvR0yA90UZ</a></p>— Habib Khan Totakhil (@HabibKhanT) <a href="https://twitter.com/HabibKhanT/status/1191434888974675968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[kk1992]

Lol at Bollywood.

Why would non Indian care about Bollywood?

Recently they are Known to distort the facts to cater the inherited ignorant audience of RSS.

In Bollywood “Factually”correct movie would get the whole production of any movie searching for pennies.

 

[Mamoon]

Every conquerer is either a barbaric invader or a liberator, depending on your perspective. No one is black and white.

Durrani was a barbaric invader for the people of the subcontinent but a liberator for the people of Afghanistan. Since this movie is being made by Bollywood, it is obvious that they are going to portray him from their perspective.

If the Afghans feels strongly about the Indian point of view, they are free to make their own version where they glorify his legacy.

If Pakistan were to make a movie about Muhammad bin Qasim, they would portray him as a great conquerer who established Islam in the subcontinent and was dubbed as the first Pakistani by M. Jinnah.

They would not consider the perspective of the local Sindhis whose fathers and sons were killed by his invading forces and were then made to pay jizya as second class citizens.

 

[cricketjoshila]

For people of India Abdali was a barbarian and thats how he will be portrayed. Afghans can make a movie glorifying him.

 

[introvert]

I learned the lesson with padmaavat to watch historical movies for entertainment only. Since 90 % of plot in this movies is fictional as the disclaimer before the movie playback in theatre suggests.
In padmaavat they portrayed khilji barbaric , unethical , back stabber etc & rajputs as saints.
Similarly in this movie they will portray marathas in good light & abdali as villain. They will try to undermine abdali's victory to raise their forgotten kings stature among audiences who gonna watch this.

Trailer is pretty average due to bad casting. arjun kapoor can't act & sanjay dutt is too old to play abdali.this movie can lead to internal conflict between rajputs & marathas as the title tag line of the movie " the great betrayal" basically taking jibe at rajputs who didn't supported marathas in this war.

 

[Hitman]

I learned the lesson with padmaavat to watch historical movies for entertainment only. Since 90 % of plot in this movies is fictional as the disclaimer before the movie playback in theatre suggests.
In padmaavat they portrayed khilji barbaric , unethical , back stabber etc & rajputs as saints.
Similarly in this movie they will portray marathas in good light & abdali as villain. They will try to undermine abdali's victory to raise their forgotten kings stature among audiences who gonna watch this.

Trailer is pretty average due to bad casting. arjun kapoor can't act & sanjay dutt is too old to play abdali.this movie can lead to internal conflict between rajputs & marathas as the title tag line of the movie " the great betrayal" basically taking jibe at rajputs who didn't supported marathas in this war.

So what exactly was he according to history? Did he kill his father-in-law Jallaluddin in lure of the throne or not? That makes him a backstabber. As for being barbaric and unethical, that's exactly what history calls him, a tyrant.

 

[pakistani pride]

LOL good for the Afghans.

 

[Jin Chacha]

Indians like modern Afghans but think of their ancestors as barbarians. Many Pakistanis tend to portray modern Afghans as backward but think of medieval Afghans as enlightened.

Politics is a funny thing.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I feel this is excellent news. Remember, Pakistan is barely 70 years old, prior to this Afghanistan and India were mortal rivals. It will be a good reminder to Afghans about India's true feelings towards their allegedly barbaric history.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

For people of India Abdali was a barbarian and thats how he will be portrayed. Afghans can make a movie glorifying him.

there were Indian Muslims like Shah Wali Ullah who called on Abdali to come to India as the Mughals were in decline due to the Marthas and Sikhs. Muslims of North India benefited from having a Muslim King in charge, and they did not care who it was, as long as he was a Muslim. It was much better in that era to be in a empire where the King had the same faith as you, as Punjabi and Kashmiri Muslims would find out under Sikhs.

So Bollywood is ignoring how Muslims of India, especially Indian Muslims who are of pathan descent would feel.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

So what exactly was he according to history? Did he kill his father-in-law Jallaluddin in lure of the throne or not? That makes him a backstabber. As for being barbaric and unethical, that's exactly what history calls him, a tyrant.

How did the first Hindu King of a Kingdom became King? Did he not kill people? If you judge people by modern standards then every King was a barbarian.

 

[Hitman]

How did the first Hindu King of a Kingdom became King? Did he not kill people? If you judge people by modern standards then every King was a barbarian.

You don't need to judge Alauddin Khilji by modern standards. Even by the standards of that time he was a blood thirsty tyrant. And that's what history tells us. Now if you want to disapprove history then go ahead.

If you judge people by modern standards then every King was a barbarian.

Why exactly is Alauddin Khilji regarded a tyrant but not Akbar or Jahangir?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Every conquerer is either a barbaric invader or a liberator, depending on your perspective. No one is black and white.

Durrani was a barbaric invader for the people of the subcontinent but a liberator for the people of Afghanistan. Since this movie is being made by Bollywood, it is obvious that they are going to portray him from their perspective.

If the Afghans feels strongly about the Indian point of view, they are free to make their own version where they glorify his legacy.

If Pakistan were to make a movie about Muhammad bin Qasim, they would portray him as a great conquerer who established Islam in the subcontinent and was dubbed as the first Pakistani by M. Jinnah.

They would not consider the perspective of the local Sindhis whose fathers and sons were killed by his invading forces and were then made to pay jizya as second class citizens.

Romans started with one city, they conquered new land and they assimilated the people they conquered into their civilization. Today entire Europe, even areas where they did not rule looks at their era as a golden age.

Same way Muslims started with one city (Medina) they conquered new land and they assimilated the people through marriage and conversion into their empire.

BTW the local Sindhis were majority Buddhist, who were treated way worse than second class citizens by a Brahmin King. Thats why they allied themselves with Qasim.

"The fall of Multan laid the Indus valley at the feet of the conqueror. The tribes came in, 'ringing bells and beating drums and dancing,' in token of welcome. The Hindu rulers had oppressed them heavily, and the Jats and Meds and other tribes were on the side of the invaders. The work of conquest, as often happened in India, was thus aided by the disunion of the inhabitants, and jealousies of race and creed conspired to help the Muslims. To such suppliants Mohammad Kasim gave the liberal terms that the Arabs usually offered to all but inveterate foes. He imposed the customary poll-tax, took hostages for good conduct, and spared the people's lands and lives. He even left their shrines undesecrated: 'The temples,' he proclaimed, 'shall be inviolate, like the churches of the Christians, the synagogues of the Jews, and the altars of the Magians.'"Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under Mohammedan Rule, 712-1764, G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York, 1970. p. 9-10

 

[Hitman]

These blood thirsty animals were all a blot on the human race.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Indian "media", the Bollywood and great majority of their "historians" are literally brainwashing the masses.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

I feel this is excellent news. Remember, Pakistan is barely 70 years old, prior to this Afghanistan and India were mortal rivals. It will be a good reminder to Afghans about India's true feelings towards their allegedly barbaric history.

No offense to Afghani readers but, in my humble opinion, majority of Afghans are a bunch of shameless people. They don't have honor to feel offended by this Bollywood filth.

Again, my biased opinion, and I could be wrong.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You don't need to judge Alauddin Khilji by modern standards. Even by the standards of that time he was a blood thirsty tyrant. And that's what history tells us. Now if you want to disapprove history then go ahead.



Why exactly is Alauddin Khilji regarded a tyrant but not Akbar or Jahangir?

First Akbar took the throne as 13 year old boy. Had Humayun lived longer he would have had to fight a civil war and kill his brothers and nephews to take the throne like other Mughals.

Second once Akbar was done killing people he assimilated them into his empire. He did not discriminate against people of different faiths. As long as you bend the knee to him he was fine with you.

Jahangir simply enjoyed the fruits of his fathers labor. He spent his time drinking and womanizing.

 

[Zaz]

I learned the lesson with padmaavat to watch historical movies for entertainment only. Since 90 % of plot in this movies is fictional as the disclaimer before the movie playback in theatre suggests.
In padmaavat they portrayed khilji barbaric , unethical , back stabber etc & rajputs as saints.
Similarly in this movie they will portray marathas in good light & abdali as villain. They will try to undermine abdali's victory to raise their forgotten kings stature among audiences who gonna watch this

Yes It seems like a trend under this govt and modern day india to potray them as foreign evil murdering invaders who brought death and despair with them on the local populace

Its not as if the likes of asoka were saints and didnt kill millions and there own family members but hey ho who cares for historical accuracy when you are trying to push your own twisted narrative of them and us for a bigger twisted end purpose

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

These blood thirsty animals were all a blot on the human race.

Were Hindu Kings who did nothing to stop the brutal caste system, and in fact encouraged it, blots on the human race???

Do you life was good for a Dalit under Hindu Kings?

 

[Kriketer]

These blood thirsty animals were all a blot on the human race.

Aha when is such movie on your current PM coming out then? Lies run deep in your society through government, media and Bollywood, so fabrication of history isn't surprising. Anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim movies and political talks is all you folks been doing since mass murderer/terrorist took over your PM office.

 

[Captain caveman]

These blood thirsty animals were all a blot on the human race.

And what are your thoughts on christian crusaders and the christian spanish inquistion?
Also, you thoughts on the christian british, christian french and christian portugese invaders of india ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

How did the first Hindu King of a Kingdom became King? Did he not kill people? If you judge people by modern standards then every King was a barbarian.

Very good point.

 

[warcry]

first of all, why should we pakistani care what rubbish emerges from our eastern border?
better off banning their products and making our own movies about our history, instead of the usual domestic violence soaps & love story musicals.

 

[Lonewarrior]

so let me guess, in the end, the marathas will win .... becoz thats the only way you can change the history of india with the help of movies ....

 

[Hitman]

First Akbar took the throne as 13 year old boy. Had Humayun lived longer he would have had to fight a civil war and kill his brothers and nephews to take the throne like other Mughals.

Second once Akbar was done killing people he assimilated them into his empire. He did not discriminate against people of different faiths. As long as you bend the knee to him he was fine with you.

Jahangir simply enjoyed the fruits of his fathers labor. He spent his time drinking and womanizing.

Really? So why exactly every ruler in history not regarded a tyrant? Or is poor Alauddin Khilji a victim of discrimination by historians?

 

[Pakistanian]

Every conquerer is either a barbaric invader or a liberator, depending on your perspective. No one is black and white.

Durrani was a barbaric invader for the people of the subcontinent but a liberator for the people of Afghanistan. Since this movie is being made by Bollywood, it is obvious that they are going to portray him from their perspective.

If the Afghans feels strongly about the Indian point of view, they are free to make their own version where they glorify his legacy.

If Pakistan were to make a movie about Muhammad bin Qasim, they would portray him as a great conquerer who established Islam in the subcontinent and was dubbed as the first Pakistani by M. Jinnah.

They would not consider the perspective of the local Sindhis whose fathers and sons were killed by his invading forces and were then made to pay jizya as second class citizens.

History isn't you're strongest subject. Before Bin Qasim invaded Sindh, Sindh was a caste-divided society, the King of Sindh was from the highest hindu caste and most of the lower castes including the warrior castes along with the Buddhists support the Arab conquest. What you don't understand is that a foreign invasion can NEVER be successful with substantial local support especially in those days. The Arabs had allies. When you speak of "Sindhis" you're thinking of them as one people when in reality they had many different castes and tribes and those were their primary identities, it's no conincidiance that certain castes converted en masse thus have similar last names.

 

[Hitman]

Were Hindu Kings who did nothing to stop the brutal caste system, and in fact encouraged it, blots on the human race???

Do you life was good for a Dalit under Hindu Kings?

There is a reason why I called those invaders blood thirsty animals. Notice the words blood thirsty.

 

[Hitman]

Aha when is such movie on your current PM coming out then? Lies run deep in your society through government, media and Bollywood, so fabrication of history isn't surprising. Anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim movies and political talks is all you folks been doing since mass murderer/terrorist took over your PM office.

Mass murderer according to whom? According to you Pakistanis? Or according to some random tom, dick and harry from the West? Because as far as I recall he was pronounced not guilty by the court.

Fabrication of history? If you want to learn how to fabricate history then look no further towards your own country which has so nicely fabricated the innocence of your brave fauj in 1971 in East Pakistan.

 

[Mamoon]

History isn't you're strongest subject. Before Bin Qasim invaded Sindh, Sindh was a caste-divided society, the King of Sindh was from the highest hindu caste and most of the lower castes including the warrior castes along with the Buddhists support the Arab conquest. What you don't understand is that a foreign invasion can NEVER be successful with substantial local support especially in those days. The Arabs had allies. When you speak of "Sindhis" you're thinking of them as one people when in reality they had many different castes and tribes and those were their primary identities, it's no conincidiance that certain castes converted en masse thus have similar last names.

Nonsense. This is what happens when you read one-sided versions of history. Of course Sindh was a caste-divided society because it was a Hindu kingdom. When did I say that they were homogenous people? I am talking about the local indigenous people whose sons and fathers were killed by Mohammad bin Qasim’s forces.

You are confusing conquering umpires with sustaining empires. You do not need the local support to conquer an empire, but you do need their support to sustain the empire.

What you don’t seem to understand is that locals DO NOT support foreign invaders because they believe in their vision. They simply don’t have a choice because they have to ultimately choose between death and life. You are deluding yourself if you think that the local people were in awe of the Mohammad Bin Qasim and the Arabs and supported them because they established a utopian state in Sindh.

Similarly, a lot of people embraced Islam under duress. It was a choice between paying jizya and living as second class citizens or embracing Islam. The latter option was more lucrative for many. Hence, the notion that Islam didn’t spread by the might of the sword is laughable.

As far as the local perspective on Muhammad Bin Qasim is concerned, you need to read about him in Chach Nama, an 8th century account of Sindh history. You would realize that the locals didn’t think of him as a liberator who liberated them from the regime of Raja Dahir.

 

[Mamoon]

Romans started with one city, they conquered new land and they assimilated the people they conquered into their civilization. Today entire Europe, even areas where they did not rule looks at their era as a golden age.

Same way Muslims started with one city (Medina) they conquered new land and they assimilated the people through marriage and conversion into their empire.

BTW the local Sindhis were majority Buddhist, who were treated way worse than second class citizens by a Brahmin King. Thats why they allied themselves with Qasim.

"The fall of Multan laid the Indus valley at the feet of the conqueror. The tribes came in, 'ringing bells and beating drums and dancing,' in token of welcome. The Hindu rulers had oppressed them heavily, and the Jats and Meds and other tribes were on the side of the invaders. The work of conquest, as often happened in India, was thus aided by the disunion of the inhabitants, and jealousies of race and creed conspired to help the Muslims. To such suppliants Mohammad Kasim gave the liberal terms that the Arabs usually offered to all but inveterate foes. He imposed the customary poll-tax, took hostages for good conduct, and spared the people's lands and lives. He even left their shrines undesecrated: 'The temples,' he proclaimed, 'shall be inviolate, like the churches of the Christians, the synagogues of the Jews, and the altars of the Magians.'"Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under Mohammedan Rule, 712-1764, G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York, 1970. p. 9-10

They did not ally themselves with Mohammad bin Qasim because he was any better than Dahir. They simply didn’t have a choice after their sons and fathers were killed by the Arab armies. That is why a lot of the locals embraced Islam as well, because it was a choice between paying jizya and living like second class citizens and embracing Islam.

Furthermore, the lives of the destitute did not change under Mohammad Bin Qasim and his elitist Arabs who looked down on the locals as an inferior race. You need to read the perspective of Mubarak Ali who has wrote in great depth about the misplaced glorification of Muhammad Bin Qasim.

Muhammad Bin Qasim was a power hungry conquerer who had no business invading Sindh. He was sent by Hajjaj Bin Yousaf to free the Muslim prisoners. After fulfilling his objective, he should have returned instead of conquering Sindh and establishing a Muslims state. His torturous demise the way he died is a lesson for all, and it was well-deserved as well.

 

[Patriot]

Every conquerer is either a barbaric invader or a liberator, depending on your perspective. No one is black and white.

Durrani was a barbaric invader for the people of the subcontinent but a liberator for the people of Afghanistan. Since this movie is being made by Bollywood, it is obvious that they are going to portray him from their perspective.

If the Afghans feels strongly about the Indian point of view, they are free to make their own version where they glorify his legacy.

If Pakistan were to make a movie about Muhammad bin Qasim, they would portray him as a great conquerer who established Islam in the subcontinent and was dubbed as the first Pakistani by M. Jinnah.

They would not consider the perspective of the local Sindhis whose fathers and sons were killed by his invading forces and were then made to pay jizya as second class citizens.

The Arabs were retaliating for the Hindu king supporting the sea pirates who captured one of their vessels. And the Hindus even worshipped Bin Qasim. Some may have been forcibly converted but not all.

 

[Mamoon]

You would think the ancestors of Pakistanis came to the sub-continent with Muhammad bin Qasim’s army. The glorification of his legacy in Pakistan is laughable. He was nothing more than foreign invader who wanted power for himself.

 

[Mamoon]

The Arabs were retaliating for the Hindu king supporting the sea pirates who captured one of their vessels. And the Hindus even worshipped Bin Qasim. Some may have been forcibly converted but not all.

And after liberating the prisoners who were captured by Dahir, Muhammad Bin Qasim should have returned instead of conquering Sindh and shedding the blood of thousands of innocent people.

 

[AdamM97]

I still remember this one quote from my high school history teacher ”the past is about what has already happened, but history is the human interpretation of the past”.

Ahmad Shah Durrani, was no different than any other King/Emperor/Warlord of the 18th century. It would be ignorant to call Ahmad Shah Durrani a barbarian while defending the Marathas. In the same way, calling the Marathas barbarians while defending Ahmad Shah Durrani would make you look dishonest as well.

Another thing i remember from my history classes is the different ways people misuse history, the most common one being for ideological purposes. Everyone, whether they’re Pakistanis, Indians, Afghans, British or Nigerian use history either to legitimize an ideology/nation or to criticize it. Bollywood criticizing Ahmad Shah Durrani is no different than a Pakistani making a movie about the barbaric acts of Ranjit Singh against Punjabi and Kashmiri Muslims.

I always love when people call Hitler bad while defending Winston Churchill or King Leopold of Belgium(who killed more people than Hitler). Winners and those who hold the pen, write down history.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

One of the best lines I've ever read here was " Mamoon be like 'Indians sit back...I got this'

Don't know who it was but take a bow sir.

 

[AdamM97]

He's a secular Punjabi neo-nationalist, they worship Ranjit Singh. I consider him part of the Tarek Fateh school of thought.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I hope Bollywood doesn't alter historical facts in this movie that could hurt feelings of a friendly nation. Abdali was the founder of greater Afghanistan and no true Afghan would allow anyone disrespect their founding fathers. <a href="https://t.co/HvR0yA90UZ">https://t.co/HvR0yA90UZ</a></p>— Habib Khan Totakhil (@HabibKhanT) <a href="https://twitter.com/HabibKhanT/status/1191434888974675968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

As a Punjabi, I cringe whenever someone thinks of themselves as a Punjabi nationalist. The term Punjab is only 200 years old term coined by the British. Before that, most Punjabis didn’t even think of themselves as part of a larger ”Punjabi” community, most Punjabis only identified with their tribe/caste or religion.

 

[Patriot]

And after liberating the prisoners who were captured by Dahir, Muhammad Bin Qasim should have returned instead of conquering Sindh and shedding the blood of thousands of innocent people.

Why? Should Umar Al Khattab given Syria, etc. back to the Romans after defeating them? Should the Prophet Muhmmad SAW returned Makkah to the Quraish idolators and returned back to Madinah. No. Bin Qasim most likey wanted to establish Arab rule to spread Islam because that was his belief. So he fought and as a result of warfare, people died as it happens in war. But did he carry out genocide? If he did then he should be judged for that.

There was nothing wrong in implementing Jizya at the time. It’s an Islamic concept and is cheaper than Zakat and paid for protection of minorities.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Were Hindu Kings who did nothing to stop the brutal caste system, and in fact encouraged it, blots on the human race???

Do you life was good for a Dalit under Hindu Kings?

People of lower caste too became Kings in India.

Guptas were Vaishyas. Nandas Shudras. Mauryas came from a clan of peacock rearers. The Palas were again Vaishayas.

The caste system was bad, but it was far better than the slavery system the rest of the world followed.

 

[Patriot]

People of lower caste too became Kings in India.

Guptas were Vaishyas. Nandas Shudras. Mauryas came from a clan of peacock rearers. The Palas were again Vaishayas.

The caste system was bad, but it was far better than the slavery system the rest of the world followed.

Nothing was as bad as the Atlantic slave trade.

 

[AdamM97]

People of lower caste too became Kings in India.

Guptas were Vaishyas. Nandas Shudras. Mauryas came from a clan of peacock rearers. The Palas were again Vaishayas.

The caste system was bad, but it was far better than the slavery system the rest of the world followed.

You can’t compare slavery to the caste system. The caste system is a way of structuring society, slavery isn’t. The European equivalence of the caste system is the feudal system which lasted until the 18th-19th century in Europe.

The European feudal system of the medieval era was oppressive and bad, but even then, poor farmers could(sometimes) change their class by becoming priests or knights after getting a formal education.

 

[Patriot]

You can’t compare slavery to the caste system. The caste system is a way of structuring society, slavery isn’t. The European equivalence of the caste system is the feudal system which lasted until the 18th-19th century in Europe.

The European feudal system of the medieval era was oppressive and bad, but even then, poor farmers could(sometimes) change their class by becoming priests or knights after getting a formal education.

Whilst you are correct, I think the point was that the caste system was as bad as it got with Ancient India. Whilst slavery is obviously worse than the caste system, Ancient India and China are not known to practice slavery unlike elsewhere in the world.

 

[AdamM97]

Whilst you are correct, I think the point was that the caste system was as bad as it got with Ancient India. Whilst slavery is obviously worse than the caste system, Ancient India and China are not known to practice slavery unlike elsewhere in the world.

Every culture has practiced slavery, some more, some less. Slavery was uncommon but not absent in ancient India. Still, that’s an achievement considering how common slavery was back then.

 

[Patriot]

Btw, protection isn’t cost free. The US today has a number of military bases in the Middle East in the name of protection and the cost is a lot more than what the Muslims charged under Jizya.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/yahy...f-dhimmi-explained-by-sheikh-hamza-yusuf/amp/

 

[Jin Chacha]

Just watched the trailer and to be fair I don't know how Abdali is being portrayed as barbaric. By Bollywood standards it is pretty fair and much better than the laughably bad portrayal of Alauddin Khilji in the last movie. Abdali is portrayed as a violent and ruthless invader (not far from the truth) but at least based on the trailer their is nothing particularly barbaric about the character.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

They did not ally themselves with Mohammad bin Qasim because he was any better than Dahir. They simply didn’t have a choice after their sons and fathers were killed by the Arab armies. That is why a lot of the locals embraced Islam as well, because it was a choice between paying jizya and living like second class citizens and embracing Islam.

Furthermore, the lives of the destitute did not change under Mohammad Bin Qasim and his elitist Arabs who looked down on the locals as an inferior race. You need to read the perspective of Mubarak Ali who has wrote in great depth about the misplaced glorification of Muhammad Bin Qasim.

Muhammad Bin Qasim was a power hungry conquerer who had no business invading Sindh. He was sent by Hajjaj Bin Yousaf to free the Muslim prisoners. After fulfilling his objective, he should have returned instead of conquering Sindh and establishing a Muslims state. His torturous demise the way he died is a lesson for all, and it was well-deserved as well.

What business did Raja Dahir have in conquering Sindh? Was he doing it out of the goodness of his heart?

In an era of conquer vs being conquered why did Muslims not have a right to conquer land like Romans.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You would think the ancestors of Pakistanis came to the sub-continent with Muhammad bin Qasim’s army. The glorification of his legacy in Pakistan is laughable. He was nothing more than foreign invader who wanted power for himself.

Every King wants power for himself. Stop thinking non Muslim Kings were great humanitarians.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

People of lower caste too became Kings in India.

Guptas were Vaishyas. Nandas Shudras. Mauryas came from a clan of peacock rearers. The Palas were again Vaishayas.

The caste system was bad, but it was far better than the slavery system the rest of the world followed.

What was better Hindu case system or Muslims conquering land and assimilating the people they conquered into their empire and giving them the same rights as any other Muslim?

They might have treated people of other religions as second class citizens but they for the most part took care of there own.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Why? Should Umar Al Khattab given Syria, etc. back to the Romans after defeating them? Should the Prophet Muhmmad SAW returned Makkah to the Quraish idolators and returned back to Madinah. No. Bin Qasim most likey wanted to establish Arab rule to spread Islam because that was his belief. So he fought and as a result of warfare, people died as it happens in war. But did he carry out genocide? If he did then he should be judged for that.

There was nothing wrong in implementing Jizya at the time. It’s an Islamic concept and is cheaper than Zakat and paid for protection of minorities.

Like White liberals have created white guilt, Muslim liberals have created this concept of Muslim guilt, that Muslims should apologize for empires that had in the past, when everyone else had them as well.


And the worst part is if Muslims did not have any empires, people like him would say, see everyone else had an empire, why did Muslims not have one? and blame Islam for it.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Really? So why exactly every ruler in history not regarded a tyrant? Or is poor Alauddin Khilji a victim of discrimination by historians?

Who is a tyrant is a matter of perspective.

For Hindus its understandable that Khijli like almost every most Muslim Kings is a tyrant. They did not assimilate into the local culture like Kushans, Scythians, Huns, etc who invaded before. They destroyed temples, made them pay jizya, raped women, treated them like second class citizens in their own land.

Now see it from the Muslim perspective.

The first generation might have been invaders, but they made the subcontinent there home, they intermarried with the locals, and within a couple of generations became no different than the other subcontinent Muslims. They did not go back to Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.

They created a new culture which fused local Indian and Persian elements. From cuisine, architecture, clothing, music, poetry, etc. This culture only exists in the Subcontinent.

Ultimately Muslims benefited under there rule, so they have no hard feelings towards them, in fact they see it as golden age.

And as far Khijli goes, for Muslims he is most famous for beating the Mongols.

 

[Mamoon]

What business did Raja Dahir have in conquering Sindh? Was he doing it out of the goodness of his heart?

In an era of conquer vs being conquered why did Muslims not have a right to conquer land like Romans.

Every King wants power for himself. Stop thinking non Muslim Kings were great humanitarians.

Exactly. Every conqueror is either a foreign invader or a plunderer depending on which side you are on. There was nothing special or unique about the Muslim invaders.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Exactly. Every conqueror is either a foreign invader or a plunderer depending on which side you are on. There was nothing special or unique about the Muslim invaders.

So why should subcontinent Muslims regret it? The Muslims soldiers and settlers whether they were Arab, Persian, Turk, Afghan, married/raped local women. There descendants live in the subcontinent, not anywhere else. Those are our people.

What was special about Muslims was they gave second class rights to Hindus and Buddhist. Not every conqueror does that. There is a reason why Latin America is 99% Christian. Plus people who converted to Islam got first class citizenship. British didn't give Indian Christians the same rights that they had.

 

[Patriot]

So why should subcontinent Muslims regret it? The Muslims soldiers and settlers whether they were Arab, Persian, Turk, Afghan, married/raped local women. There descendants live in the subcontinent, not anywhere else. Those are our people.

What was special about Muslims was they gave second class rights to Hindus and Buddhist. Not every conqueror does that. There is a reason why Latin America is 99% Christian. Plus people who converted to Islam got first class citizenship. British didn't give Indian Christians the same rights that they had.

Islam doesn’t give minorities second class rights. It gives them a special status to protect their assets, their laws, culture, places of worship, etc. During the time of Hazrat Ali, he lost a court case against a Jewish man whilst being the caliph. That will never happen anywhere else, even today. This also shows that Islam clearly established the separation of Government to the Judiciary.

Now not all Muslim states after the time of the Prophet or the first four Caliphs have adhered to Islam, hence why we have so many Muslim tyrants and rulers.

 

[Mamoon]

So why should subcontinent Muslims regret it? The Muslims soldiers and settlers whether they were Arab, Persian, Turk, Afghan, married/raped local women. There descendants live in the subcontinent, not anywhere else. Those are our people.

What was special about Muslims was they gave second class rights to Hindus and Buddhist. Not every conqueror does that. There is a reason why Latin America is 99% Christian. Plus people who converted to Islam got first class citizenship. British didn't give Indian Christians the same rights that they had.

We don’t have to regret it. My point is that there is no need of glorifying it. They were not liberators and neither were they saints in terms of how they ruled the government.

It is also perfectly understandable if non-Muslims view them as blood thirsty invaders. After all, thousands of non-Muslims died because of their self-righteous quest to spread Islam.

 

[JaDed]

Aha when is such movie on your current PM coming out then? Lies run deep in your society through government, media and Bollywood, so fabrication of history isn't surprising. Anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim movies and political talks is all you folks been doing since mass murderer/terrorist took over your PM office.

Dev is the movie name. (Names changed). go see

 

[ahmedzee]

As per indian books and bollywood, all muslim leaders were villains. All Hindus were saints.
Fools are those indians (and they are majority) who will believe all what bollywood tells them.

 

[JaDed]

so let me guess, in the end, the marathas will win .... becoz thats the only way you can change the history of india with the help of movies ....

Its named “the betrayal “ bro, so assumption is someone betrayed and they lost.. even in padmvat Khilji won bro, the point they show in these movies is how they(rajputs or marathas) are more ‘righteous’ and follow rules.

 

[cricketjoshila]

What was better Hindu case system or Muslims conquering land and assimilating the people they conquered into their empire and giving them the same rights as any other Muslim?

They might have treated people of other religions as second class citizens but they for the most part took care of there own.

Caste system didnot kill people, didnot loot them, didnot break their temples or ravaged their woman.

Taking care of a small minority while ravaging and pillaging the majority is no good.

 

[JaDed]

As per indian books and bollywood, all muslim leaders were villains. All Hindus were saints.
Fools are those indians (and they are majority) who will believe all what bollywood tells them.

Go read ‘a fine balance‘ if not don’t talk about all Indian books just like you know everything.

 

[ahmedzee]

Go read ‘a fine balance‘ if not don’t talk about all Indian books just like you know everything.

So where do u think bollywood gets their history lessons from?

 

[JaDed]

Its all about perspective, as a Punjabi the Durrani and Dogras were all enemies in historical context to me and so were the Mughals but as an Indian all of them are part of my history , I don’t hold any grudge or resistance to any of them.

The only historical context that affected me and my family was partition, I couldn’t care about Dogras coz that preceded 100 years, Mughals and Prev ones mattered even less.

Religion survived..

 

[JaDed]

So where do u think bollywood gets their history lessons from?

No where clearly, did you even see Mughal-eAzam or jodha Akbar?

The clearly show what they want, not once they mention three wives of Akbar , not to forget Jehangir had 20 wives but Salim is madly in love with Anarkali lol.

Its drama man, Desis Love it ..

 

[Pakistanian]

For people of India Abdali was a barbarian and thats how he will be portrayed. Afghans can make a movie glorifying him.

who are the "people of india", no such nation existed. I'm sure there were people within india that were rooting for Abdali to win.

 

[Lahorijat]

My mother told me there was a saying in Punjabi, “Khada peeta lahay da, baqi Ahmad shahay da”.
Also found below on internet:
The great Punjabi poet Baba Waris Shah said of the situation, "khada peeta wahy da, baqi Ahmad Shahy da" — "we have nothing with us except what we eat and wear, all other things are for Ahmad Shah".

 

[JaDed]

who are the "people of india", no such nation existed. I'm sure there were people within india that were rooting for Abdali to win.

Yes and there are movies glorifying Mughals too.. whats the point , India shouldn’t make movies at all?

 

[Pakistanian]

Its all about perspective, as a Punjabi the Durrani and Dogras were all enemies in historical context to me and so were the Mughals but as an Indian all of them are part of my history , I don’t hold any grudge or resistance to any of them.

The only historical context that affected me and my family was partition, I couldn’t care about Dogras coz that preceded 100 years, Mughals and Prev ones mattered even less.

Religion survived..

For Kashmiris - the Dogras, Sikhs and Durranis were all oppressors although the Dogras would be considered the worst of the lot.

 

[JaDed]

My mother told me there was a saying in Punjabi, “Khada peeta lahay da, baqi Ahmad shahay da”.
Also found below on internet:
The great Punjabi poet Baba Waris Shah said of the situation, "khada peeta wahy da, baqi Ahmad Shahy da" — "we have nothing with us except what we eat and wear, all other things are for Ahmad Shah".

Yes, and this is the Punjabi perspective.

 

[JaDed]

For Kashmiris - the Dogras, Sikhs and Durranis were all oppressors although the Dogras would be considered the worst of the lot.

That’s how it is, the concept is similar across the world..

 

[Kroll]

Seems like Bollywood is going through and targeting all Muslims that have had a significant role in sub-continent history.

 

[JaDed]

Seems like Bollywood is going through and targeting all Muslims that have had a significant role in sub-continent history.

Durrani? Are you saying in Pak punjab Durrani is looked upto because Afghanistan is not part of subcontinent.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Caste system didnot kill people, didnot loot them, didnot break their temples or ravaged their woman.

Taking care of a small minority while ravaging and pillaging the majority is no good.

Yea but the thing is they could have joined the minority if they wanted by converting. With the caste system you were stuck. Its one thing if your father is a doctor and you have to also become a doctor. But what if your father is a toilet cleaner, and that's the only occupation you can have. So in a way by restricting the lower caste to lower occupations they are being robbed. And until modern era the caste system denied lower ones the right to use many temples. And if dalits rebelled against high castes historically would they not have been killed?

 

[Kroll]

Durrani? Are you saying in Pak punjab Durrani is looked upto because Afghanistan is not part of subcontinent.

Huh? Don't know what you mean? Care to elaborate.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Durrani? Are you saying in Pak punjab Durrani is looked upto because Afghanistan is not part of subcontinent.

If the pashtun belt of Afghanistan is not part of the subcontinent than pashtun areas of Pakistan are not part of the subcontinent either.

Which means Gandhara and Hindu Shahi is not part of subcontinent history either. You cant have it both ways on Afghanistan that there pre islamic past is part of subcontinent history, and then once that area became Muslim those areas are foreign.

BTW there are millions of people in Punjab Pakistan who are of pathan heritage, with the most famous one being Imran Khan Niazi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathans_of_Punjab

 

[Kroll]

Durrani? Are you saying in Pak punjab Durrani is looked upto because Afghanistan is not part of subcontinent.

If the pashtun belt of Afghanistan is not part of the subcontinent than pashtun areas of Pakistan are not part of the subcontinent either.

Which means Gandhara and Hindu Shahi is not part of subcontinent history either. You cant have it both ways on Afghanistan that there pre islamic past is part of subcontinent history, and then once that area became Muslim those areas are foreign.

BTW there are millions of people in Punjab Pakistan who are of pathan heritage, with the most famous one being Imran Khan Niazi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathans_of_Punjab

You don't necessarily have to be from the region to have played a role in its history. Case being the Mughals who were originally from central Asia. Durrani was a neighbour so he was even closer.

However, my point is that Bollywood seems to be cherry picking these Muslim personalities and demonizing them all. Has RSS took control of Bollywood now, have they dislodged the Mumbai underworld mafia?

 

[Patriot]

Pashtuns are not South Asian. They are a people of Central Asia with more commonality to Iran than South Asia. Those of Pashtun descent in Punjab maybe Pakistani by nationality but are not Punjabi’s.

 

[JaDed]

If the pashtun belt of Afghanistan is not part of the subcontinent than pashtun areas of Pakistan are not part of the subcontinent either.

Which means Gandhara and Hindu Shahi is not part of subcontinent history either. You cant have it both ways on Afghanistan that there pre islamic past is part of subcontinent history, and then once that area became Muslim those areas are foreign.

BTW there are millions of people in Punjab Pakistan who are of pathan heritage, with the most famous one being Imran Khan Niazi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathans_of_Punjab

Yes, so its a perspective.. see the posts above..

 

[Pakistanian]

Durrani? Are you saying in Pak punjab Durrani is looked upto because Afghanistan is not part of subcontinent.

Punjab is very diverse and is caste/tribe stratified society - a unified ethnic identity never really existed as was the case in other parts of the subcontinent. Some communities in Punjab were against Abdali while others were supportive of him. I know for a fact that none of Punjabis of Pashtun and Kashmiri origin in modern day Punjab looked up to Ranjit Singh.

 

[Pakistanian]

Pashtuns are not South Asian. They are a people of Central Asia with more commonality to Iran than South Asia. Those of Pashtun descent in Punjab maybe Pakistani by nationality but are not Punjabi’s.

I think you're talking about Pashtuns of the Northwest. Pashtun tribes in Punjab have been Punjabized and speak Punjabi like Imran Khan, likewise many Koshur people (Kashmiris) settled in Punjab and adopted Punjabi, so they can be considered Punjabis ethnically but not by blood.