New Bollywood movie portrays Ahmad Shah Durrani as a barbarian

[Pakistanian]

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

Tbf Gandhara only recently became Pashtun majority in the past few centuries.

 

[Patriot]

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.

Doesn’t change the blood or DNA no matter how long they live in Punjab, as long as they don’t marry into Punjabis.

Will a white Anglo Saxon community become Punjabi if they live there for centuries?

 

[Pakistanian]

Doesn’t change the blood or DNA no matter how long they live in Punjab, as long as they don’t marry into Punjabis.

Will a white Anglo Saxon community become Punjabi if they live there for centuries?

Kashmiris in Punjab are already considered Punjabi for all practical purposes. Also there's no such thing as "Punjabi DNA", Punjab is a caste based society as like other regions within the subcontinent so people try to "preserve their DNA" by not marrying into other "biraadris" (communities)

 

[szrana]

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.

For subcontinent's muslims, they will always be seen as God sent warriors, whose mission was to spread the religion of truth. Islam spread because Allah s.w.t chose them to do it,no matter how much you hate it. Muslims of subcontinent love Islam and don't give two hoots about what brainwashed hindus think about them. For that reason Delhi Sultanate rulers and Mughal Emperors will always be there heroes.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Despite being numerically inferior, how did these Afghan and Turk invaders manage to conquer swathes of Indian sub-continent? And that too for centuries one after another.

Similar story with British raj. Is that because local Indian populace has always been meek and weak?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Sad to see this. Bollywood should stop peddling such lies and properly represent these warriors of Islam and their noble deeds . An apology to the nation of Afghanistan would be welcome too.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I saw the trailer, and Durrani is played by Sanjay Dutt who looks like an old carcass these days. Killed any interest stone dead, I was at least expecting to see some handsome Bollywood actors on screen, but even the Hindu king looks like a younger version of Gandhi.

 

[rahulrulezz]

Despite being numerically inferior, how did these Afghan and Turk invaders manage to conquer swathes of Indian sub-continent? And that too for centuries one after another.

Similar story with British raj. Is that because local Indian populace has always been meek and weak?

You do know that you are talking about yourself.

Imagine how easy it must be to convert and don’t pay Jizya and live as a second class citizens. But your ancestors did.

 

[rahulrulezz]

Btw people who are talking about old Indians being weak, whole of Afghanistan and Iran was non-Muslim just 1000 years back. Yet, they gave into the invaders of Caliphate.

Heck, there are more Zoarashtrians in India than Iran. (Zoarashterians are Iranians who saved their lives from Muslim invaders 950 years back by boating to Iran)

 

[Knight_Rider]

You do know that you are talking about yourself.

Imagine how easy it must be to convert and don’t pay Jizya and live as a second class citizens. But your ancestors did.

True, like many muslims in Indian SC i realise the fact that “some” of my ancestors were hindus. I dont have hatred of Hindus and genuinely consider them blood related to most Pakistani muslims. Islam as a religion only arrived 1500 years ago before that everyone had some other religion. I am happy abt my Indian origins and infact happy to be identified that way.

Still its a genuine question that how come “foreign Invaders” could easily capture india over and over again? Why Hinduism as a religion retracted from places like Indonesia, Burma and even Afghanistan?

May be the answer isn’t that simple or black n white.

 

[Mohammad zuber]

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

Khali wo hi movie bana skata hai wo director jo bikta hai market mein mostly hindus want to see ??baki sab toh nanga nach chalta hai bollywood mein sale sari movies hamare south ke remake karte hai

 

[troodon]

Despite being numerically inferior, how did these Afghan and Turk invaders manage to conquer swathes of Indian sub-continent? And that too for centuries one after another.

Similar story with British raj. Is that because local Indian populace has always been meek and weak?

Its easy to defeat hundreds of smaller kingdoms. India did not have a Roman Empire or Byzantine type empire which can pose a united front when Central Asian and Arab/Turkic invaders were looting us for fun.

 

[rahulrulezz]

True, like many muslims in Indian SC i realise the fact that “some” of my ancestors were hindus. I dont have hatred of Hindus and genuinely consider them blood related to most Pakistani muslims. Islam as a religion only arrived 1500 years ago before that everyone had some other religion. I am happy abt my Indian origins and infact happy to be identified that way.

Still its a genuine question that how come “foreign Invaders” could easily capture india over and over again? Why Hinduism as a religion retracted from places like Indonesia, Burma and even Afghanistan?

May be the answer isn’t that simple or black n white.

I would actually rephrase your question other way around. How come India stood up to Invaders? And the credit goes to Pakistanis.

Because Iraq, Iran, Tajakistan, Afghanistan all fought against invading Caliphate armies, lost, got fully invaded, lost their religious and cultural identity, yet India stood up and was the first country who continued to defend against invaders, and that’s why it’s still majority non Muslim. Compare that to countries like Egypt, Syria, Iran etc etc

Strangely when Pakistani glorify invades, they forget that it was most likely the Pakistanis that fought against these very own invaders, most like fought very bravely that the rest of the Indians didn’t have to covert, and invaders didn’t want fight against or convert Indians because of the bravery shown by Pakistanis.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Btw people who are talking about old Indians being weak, whole of Afghanistan and Iran was non-Muslim just 1000 years back. Yet, they gave into the invaders of Caliphate.

Heck, there are more Zoarashtrians in India than Iran. (Zoarashterians are Iranians who saved their lives from Muslim invaders 950 years back by boating to Iran)

People's perceptions are coloured by what they see in front of them. Afghans and Iranians have generally been seen as combative, British history has noted particularly problems they had with Afghans in recent history. Even the immigrants who come from there tend to be reflect it. Indians are generally seen as willing to bend and fit in much easier wherever they go, hence their reputation as more easily integrated.

 

[rahulrulezz]

People's perceptions are coloured by what they see in front of them. Afghans and Iranians have generally been seen as combative, British history has noted particularly problems they had with Afghans in recent history. Even the immigrants who come from there tend to be reflect it. Indians are generally seen as willing to bend and fit in much easier wherever they go, hence their reputation as more easily integrated.

That’s true but if you look at the medieval history, I would say Pakistanis were more brave than Iranians and Afghanistan. Iranians and Afghanis gave in to the invaders, yet Pakistanis fought so bravely that they didn’t let invaders go into India. Invading armies realized how strong warriors of Indus people were when they fought Pakistanis, saw their bravery and stopped spreading to the interiors of Indus land.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That’s true but if you look at the medieval history, I would say Pakistanis were more brave than Iranians and Afghanistan. Iranians and Afghanis gave in to the invaders, yet Pakistanis fought so bravely that they didn’t let invaders go into India. Invading armies realized how strong warriors of Indus people were when they fought Pakistanis, saw their bravery and stopped spreading to the interiors of Indus land.

Well to be honest, Pakistanis also have a reputation as *****ly customers. In the UK there is a well known two word phrase which gained traction, P___ B_____.

I don't think I need to fill in the letter, you probably get the picture.

 

[andy0204]

Well to be honest, Pakistanis also have a reputation as *****ly customers. In the UK there is a well known two word phrase which gained traction, P___ B_____.

I don't think I need to fill in the letter, you probably get the picture.

Is that two words are something abusive which you gave as fill in the blanks?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Is that two words are something abusive which you gave as fill in the blanks?

You obviously aren't from the UK. Shaz, KingKhan or Robert would never need to ask.

 

[andy0204]

You obviously aren't from the UK. Shaz, KingKhan or Robert would never need to ask.

Yes iam not.

 

[JaDed]

Khali wo hi movie bana skata hai wo director jo bikta hai market mein mostly hindus want to see ??baki sab toh nanga nach chalta hai bollywood mein sale sari movies hamare south ke remake karte hai

If you want to discuss this open and a thread and i would reply to you in detail..

Don’t talk about nanga natch when the whole item song is also a huge part in southern movies.
I can give you all the movie names from Prabhas to Vijay to Ajith to Rajnikanth, use your words to fool someone who doesn’t watch movies of different languages.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes iam not.

Well the P represents abbreviation of Pakistani, the B I don't want to go into too much detail because it will get deleted by the mods. Think of Jon Snow in Game of Thrones.

 

[Kroll]

Its easy to defeat hundreds of smaller kingdoms. India did not have a Roman Empire or Byzantine type empire which can pose a united front when Central Asian and Arab/Turkic invaders were looting us for fun.

Apart from obvious factors like superior technology and weaponry, you've got to hand it to the British, very conniving and clever sods, why say so? Divide and conquer my friend, divide and conquer.

Make the people fight against each other paving the way to easily capture territory and keep a hold of it. The British are probably still chortling away to themselves after bolting from India and leaving the bloodbath of partition followed by the endless bickering and wars over Kashmir.

 

[Patriot]

You do know that you are talking about yourself.

Imagine how easy it must be to convert and don’t pay Jizya and live as a second class citizens. But your ancestors did.

Stop talking rubbish. Islam does not discriminate between Arab Muslims and non Arab Muslims. Read the final sermon of the Prophet SAW to understand that. As for minorities, Jizya is not some backwards concept.

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

 

[Patriot]

I would actually rephrase your question other way around. How come India stood up to Invaders? And the credit goes to Pakistanis.

Because Iraq, Iran, Tajakistan, Afghanistan all fought against invading Caliphate armies, lost, got fully invaded, lost their religious and cultural identity, yet India stood up and was the first country who continued to defend against invaders, and that’s why it’s still majority non Muslim. Compare that to countries like Egypt, Syria, Iran etc etc

Strangely when Pakistani glorify invades, they forget that it was most likely the Pakistanis that fought against these very own invaders, most like fought very bravely that the rest of the Indians didn’t have to covert, and invaders didn’t want fight against or convert Indians because of the bravery shown by Pakistanis.

More likely because the Arabs did not progress their invasion to all parts of the Subcontinent like they did with Iran, Central Asia. I would put it down to more of a result of internal Arab issues than anything else. For example the overthrow of the Ummayads. Similarly for some reason the Arabs never bothered with the conquest of China. Afghanistan was conquered by Qutaibah bin Muslim during the caliphate of Walid bin Abdul Malik. Similarly Sindh was also conquered during the caliphate of Walid. However, after he died, his brother Sulaiman looked west, Umar bin Abdul Aziz was more spiritual and did not invest in conquests and Hisham had to deal with rebellions in North Africa. Following Hisham, the Ummayads became internally weak until they were overthrown.

 

[andy0204]

Well the P represents abbreviation of Pakistani, the B I don't want to go into too much detail because it will get deleted by the mods. Think of Jon Snow in Game of Thrones.

I got it.

 

[andy0204]

I got it.

Shame that people have gone too much far.

 

[Knight_Rider]

I would actually rephrase your question other way around. How come India stood up to Invaders? And the credit goes to Pakistanis.

Because Iraq, Iran, Tajakistan, Afghanistan all fought against invading Caliphate armies, lost, got fully invaded, lost their religious and cultural identity, yet India stood up and was the first country who continued to defend against invaders, and that’s why it’s still majority non Muslim. Compare that to countries like Egypt, Syria, Iran etc etc

Strangely when Pakistani glorify invades, they forget that it was most likely the Pakistanis that fought against these very own invaders, most like fought very bravely that the rest of the Indians didn’t have to covert, and invaders didn’t want fight against or convert Indians because of the bravery shown by Pakistanis.

I don’t buy into the idea of mass conversion by brute force (if that was the case, many would have reverted back). Also how can you say Indians stood up, the combined population of Indian subcontinent is probably 40% muslim. The rest also include Christians, sikhs and Budhists.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Despite being numerically inferior, how did these Afghan and Turk invaders manage to conquer swathes of Indian sub-continent? And that too for centuries one after another.

Similar story with British raj. Is that because local Indian populace has always been meek and weak?

Afghans were Hindus or Buddhists for a long long time. They change according to their ruler. Hindu or Buddhists under Mauryas Guptas Kushans Karkotas Hindu shahis etc etc for 1500 years. Then Islamic inavders came and within 200-300 years the area became muslim majority. So how are they strong?

For 1000s of years the SC resisted invaders. Even now the majority of the people of the SC follow a culture that came before Islam.

Remember Arabs conquered Sindh in 8th century but could reach Delhi only in the 12th century. Even then the south of India was ruled by very powerful kingdoms like Vijayanagara Empire and was not under Muslim rule till 14th or 15th century.

The Central Asians always had better cavalry than Indians. But Indians always countered it with their huge Elephant corps

But to have Elephant Corp large enough to counter a huge Central Asian cavalry, you needed a big empire. The Arabs and Turks had a huge empire while the Indian kingdoms were small and they wouldnot come together to fight.

If you read the history of this battle, you will see that Marathas asked the Rajputs etc to join and form an alliance, as the marathas were outnumbered. But such an alliance never materialized. Resulting in the defeat of the Marathas.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Apart from obvious factors like superior technology and weaponry, you've got to hand it to the British, very conniving and clever sods, why say so? Divide and conquer my friend, divide and conquer.

Make the people fight against each other paving the way to easily capture territory and keep a hold of it. The British are probably still chortling away to themselves after bolting from India and leaving the bloodbath of partition followed by the endless bickering and wars over Kashmir.

I'm no historian, but always seemed to me British were best at administration and establishing clear lines of rule. Even manufacturing was handled with ruthless efficiency to go hand in hand with invention.

But the spoils of empire were enjoyed by the elite, the common man in Britain lived a pretty miserable life.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I don’t buy into the idea of mass conversion by brute force (if that was the case, many would have reverted back). Also how can you say Indians stood up, the combined population of Indian subcontinent is probably 40% muslim. The rest also include Christians, sikhs and Budhists.

The population of iran iraq egypt etc is 90% muslim. Population of America is 90% christian.

While India is not. Why?

 

[Kroll]

I'm no historian, but always seemed to me British were best at administration and establishing clear lines of rule. Even manufacturing was handled with ruthless efficiency to go hand in hand with invention.

But the spoils of empire were enjoyed by the elite, the common man in Britain lived a pretty miserable life.

Especially ship building helping the Royal Navy become the preeminent force of the seas thus consolidating the empire.

 

[Patriot]

Afghans were Hindus or Buddhists for a long long time. They change according to their ruler. Hindu or Buddhists under Mauryas Guptas Kushans Karkotas Hindu shahis etc etc for 1500 years. Then Islamic inavders came and within 200-300 years the area became muslim majority. So how are they strong?

For 1000s of years the SC resisted invaders. Even now the majority of the people of the SC follow a culture that came before Islam.

Remember Arabs conquered Sindh in 8th century but could reach Delhi only in the 12th century. Even then the south of India was ruled by very powerful kingdoms like Vijayanagara Empire and was not under Muslim rule till 14th or 15th century.

The Central Asians always had better cavalry than Indians. But Indians always countered it with their huge Elephant corps

But to have Elephant Corp large enough to counter a huge Central Asian cavalry, you needed a big empire. The Arabs and Turks had a huge empire while the Indian kingdoms were small and they wouldnot come together to fight.

If you read the history of this battle, you will see that Marathas asked the Rajputs etc to join and form an alliance, as the marathas were outnumbered. But such an alliance never materialized. Resulting in the defeat of the Marathas.

If you read Arab history, you will know that the Arabs didn’t really bother with expanding on their conquest due to a number of internal issues. If they had, India would be vastly different. The Arabs over a period of a few decades destroyed the Romans and the Persians, the 2 greatest empires of the time. India would not have stood their onslaught. Bin Qasim himself was recalled back and imprisoned by Sulaiman Bin Abdulmalik.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

The population of iran iraq egypt etc is 90% muslim. Population of America is 90% christian.

While India is not. Why?

Caste system stopped Indians from converting as they would be socially outcast. Only the fringe areas of the subcontinent, where Hinduism was the weakest, became Muslims majority due to the Sufis.

Outside of these Fringe areas Muslims became majority in some urban areas where Muslims has political power, as this was the area where the Muslim soldiers and immigrants came and married local women, and Hindus had an incentive to convert for economic benefit.

 

[Knight_Rider]

The population of iran iraq egypt etc is 90% muslim. Population of America is 90% christian.

While India is not. Why?

Because India really isnt 1 country but several. Its not a homogeneous mono ethnic place like Persia, Afghanistan or Turkey. So the Islam was spreading gradually one region after another.

There is a reason why all muslim majority states are geographically located together. The rest were also leaving Hinduism gradually. For example UP had a huge population of muslims before partition. If Muslim rule woild have continued beyond 16th/17th century, majority of UP would ve been muslim too.

As for “Foreign invaders”, most ethnic groups in India arrived from outside of the subcontinent at some point in time in history, gradually mixed together to some extent over the centuries. So where exactly do you draw the line in the sand? ALL invaders in history would have reacted and behaved in similar manner because thats just human nature.

“Muslim Invasion” is no different, most turks, Persians, afghanis and Arabs settled down, married locally and evolved into something different (from their original country). Its just that they were the most recent wave of immigrants and retained their religion. Its about time that Hindus realise that Indian Muslims (and Pakistanis) are same people as them. Its OK for people to choose a different religion and you cant keep on dragging the Hate from past into the future generations. It serves nobody.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Caste system stopped Indians from converting as they would be socially outcast. Only the fringe areas of the subcontinent, where Hinduism was the weakest, became Muslims majority due to the Sufis.

Outside of these Fringe areas Muslims became majority in some urban areas where Muslims has political power, as this was the area where the Muslim soldiers and immigrants came and married local women, and Hindus had an incentive to convert for economic benefit.

As i said earlier: There must be a reason why Hinduism retracted from Indonesia, Afghanistan and Burma to the mainland India and there too a big % of population left the religion.

 

[JaDed]

If you read Arab history, you will know that the Arabs didn’t really bother with expanding on their conquest due to a number of internal issues. If they had, India would be vastly different. The Arabs over a period of a few decades destroyed the Romans and the Persians, the 2 greatest empires of the time. India would not have stood their onslaught. Bin Qasim himself was recalled back and imprisoned by Sulaiman Bin Abdulmalik.

Internal issues are part of empires also Muslims See conquests are part of Islamic History this is a very dangerous aspect reason being similar analogy is being implemented by collective forces of Hindutva in India, the Rajputs or Marathas have no link to me personally eventhough my family is Hindus and Sikhs, for us traditionally it should had been the few years of Sikh empire but the political Hindu movements have made many in my family think Marathas,Dogras and Rajputs were some imaginary Hindu saviors from invaders now lol.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You do know that you are talking about yourself.

Imagine how easy it must be to convert and don’t pay Jizya and live as a second class citizens. But your ancestors did.

The Muslims soldiers and settlers whether they were Arab, Persian, Turk, Afghan, had children with local women. There descendants live in the subcontinent, not anywhere else. Those are our people. They did not go back like the British.

I dont think you realize how many Indian Muslims are of pathan (Afghan) heritage.

And unlike Indian Muslims who only have the name Khan, in Pakistan there are millions of Punjabis and Sindhi's that still have their tribal surname indicating their Pathan and Baloch heritage.

Imran Khan Niazi - Pathan from Punjab
Agha Siraj Durrani - Pathan from Sindh
Bilawal Zardari - Baloch from Sindh
Shireen Mazari - Baloch from Punjab

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Because India really isnt 1 country but several. Its not a homogeneous mono ethnic place like Persia, Afghanistan or Turkey. So the Islam was spreading gradually one region after another.

There is a reason why all muslim majority states are geographically located together. The rest were also leaving Hinduism gradually. For example UP had a huge population of muslims before partition. If Muslim rule woild have continued beyond 16th/17th century, majority of UP would ve been muslim too.

As for “Foreign invaders”, most ethnic groups in India arrived from outside of the subcontinent at some point in time in history, gradually mixed together to some extent over the centuries. So where exactly do you draw the line in the sand? ALL invaders in history would have reacted and behaved in similar manner because thats just human nature.

“Muslim Invasion” is no different, most turks, Persians, afghanis and Arabs settled down, married locally and evolved into something different (from their original country). Its just that they were the most recent wave of immigrants and retained their religion. Its about time that Hindus realise that Indian Muslims (and Pakistanis) are same people as them. Its OK for people to choose a different religion and you cant keep on dragging the Hate from past into the future generations. It serves nobody.

Exactly, they seem to think that they either disappeared, they went back, or they are like a Brahmin type population who think they are superior to the other Muslims of the subcontinent.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Sad to see this. Bollywood should stop peddling such lies and properly represent these warriors of Islam and their noble deeds . An apology to the nation of Afghanistan would be welcome too.

No one is saying that they were saints, issue is why show Hindu Marathas as the good guys and Muslim pathans as the bad guys. By modern standards everyone in that era was a thug.

Bollywood has a huge Muslim audience so does not make too much sense to give their films a communal angle.

For Hindu nationalist Hindu Kings were good, and for Muslim nationalist Muslim Kings were good, however I feel Bollywood should remain neutral.

 

[Kroll]

This Durrani dude was more poet than barbarian. This is what Mountstuart Elphinstone a Scottish historian associated with the government of British India had to say about him:

"His military courage and activity are spoken of with admiration, both by his own subjects and the nations with whom he was engaged, either in wars or alliances. He seems to have been naturally disposed to mildness and clemency and though it is impossible to acquire sovereign power and perhaps, in Asia, to maintain it, without crimes; yet the memory of no eastern prince is stained with fewer acts of cruelty and injustice."

And he actually did write poems, his most famous one being the Love of a Nation.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Continuation of Hidutva fantasies. They will use their history channel otherwise known as Bollywood to put down as many Muslims as they can.

In a civilised nation, people would laugh but this is India, they believe what is fed to them.

 

[troodon]

Its a Bollywood movie. So much fuss over this

When you try to make some historic films, somebody had to be portrayed as a villain. For Indians many Islamic invaders were villains. In this case it is Abdali.

I am sure Bollywood does not portray Abdali like Ghaznavi played by Ranveer Singh.

 

[troodon]

Continuation of Hidutva fantasies. They will use their history channel otherwise known as Bollywood to put down as many Muslims as they can.

In a civilised nation, people would laugh but this is India, they believe what is fed to them.

Muslims from Central Asia and Arabia are all invaders. Nobody invited them to rule India. They did not come to assimilate into Indian culture. They came armed with swords and weapons and killed thousands in their conquests. They will be portrayed for what they are. Of course, there will be some bias as it is an Indian movie.

 

[JaDed]

Muslims from Central Asia and Arabia are all invaders. Nobody invited them to rule India. They did not come to assimilate into Indian culture. They came armed with swords and weapons and killed thousands in their conquests. They will be portrayed for what they are. Of course, there will be some bias as it is an Indian movie.

Also it shows them winning and is played by a major hero Sunjay Dutt is a bigger star than Arjun ever would be, similarly it was Ranveer had much more role than Shahid in that movie and won..

 

[Kroll]

At least Durrani didn't overstay his welcome, going back to Khorasan after having his slugfest with the Marathas at Panipat.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Also it shows them winning and is played by a major hero Sunjay Dutt is a bigger star than Arjun ever would be, similarly it was Ranveer had much more role than Shahid in that movie and won..

Thats because they did win.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Muslims from Central Asia and Arabia are all invaders. Nobody invited them to rule India. They did not come to assimilate into Indian culture. They came armed with swords and weapons and killed thousands in their conquests. They will be portrayed for what they are. Of course, there will be some bias as it is an Indian movie.

They saved many ignorant people from a terribe way of life.

Its Muslims in India which to this day have the great monuments and history of India. Nobody remembers or knows of the so called great Hindu empires. Muslims took the land to become the 2nd richest in the world.

It would be better for India to introduce real genuine history in schools not some Bollywood fantasy to keep the fools happy.

Btw If Muslims were invaders, take down their history. Rip up the Taj Mahal but no, you need it for tourism.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Muslims from Central Asia and Arabia are all invaders. Nobody invited them to rule India. They did not come to assimilate into Indian culture. They came armed with swords and weapons and killed thousands in their conquests. They will be portrayed for what they are. Of course, there will be some bias as it is an Indian movie.

They didn't come to assimilate but they eventually did. Whatever foreign blood they had was diluted in a few generations. Its like William the conqueror invading England, the first few Kings after him spoke French but eventually they became English and viewed England as their own home. If people in England can accept them there is no reason besides from religion why Indian non Muslims cant accept them.

 

[JaDed]

Thats because they did win.

Yes, and they also did invade..there is Mughal e Azam, Taj Mahal, Jodha Akbar , sword of Tipu Sultan for the ones that made India their home..

 

[Nikhil_cric]

No one is saying that they were saints, issue is why show Hindu Marathas as the good guys and Muslim pathans as the bad guys. By modern standards everyone in that era was a thug.

Bollywood has a huge Muslim audience so does not make too much sense to give their films a communal angle.

For Hindu nationalist Hindu Kings were good, and for Muslim nationalist Muslim Kings were good, however I feel Bollywood should remain neutral.

If Muslims feel offended they are free to boycott the film. It's a perspective and there's nothing wrong with it. You can yourself see that a couple of posters have praised these 'Islamic' warriors . And that's fine too imo.

 

[Kroll]

So who's gonna being queuing up at the cines for this masterpiece, who's bought the advanced tickets?

 

[Musakhel]

Funnily Enough It was A pashtun Ibrahim Khan Gardi, A maratha general who caused Abdali Army the most damage during Panipat.

 

[PakLFC]

From the Indian Hindu perspective he was an invader and whatever else they think off him. It is also how they portrayed Khalji in "Padmavati". Nothing to get remotely upset about here.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Funnily Enough It was A pashtun Ibrahim Khan Gardi, A maratha general who caused Abdali Army the most damage during Panipat.

Yes. He was. He was allgedly captured when he was cremating the body of his commander, couple of days lster. He was tortured and killed.

The Gardi unit of Maratha army was exceptional.

If not for the confusion created due to absence of Sadashiv Rao Bhau from atop his elephant, Marathas may have even won the battle.

 

[cricketjoshila]

They saved many ignorant people from a terribe way of life.

Its Muslims in India which to this day have the great monuments and history of India. Nobody remembers or knows of the so called great Hindu empires. Muslims took the land to become the 2nd richest in the world.

It would be better for India to introduce real genuine history in schools not some Bollywood fantasy to keep the fools happy.

Btw If Muslims were invaders, take down their history. Rip up the Taj Mahal but no, you need it for tourism.

Nobody remembers? Those nobodies may be pakistanis, but the rest of the world remembers likes of Mauryans very well.

Did these invaders bring Tajmahal from outside and plant it here? It was built using local resources.

Its better that we ignore pakistani advice on everything.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Nobody remembers? Those nobodies may be pakistanis, but the rest of the world remembers likes of Mauryans very well.

Why would the rest of the world remember Mauryans? Do you think they teach Hindutva history lessons outside of India? Mughal empire is fresh in the memory because the great British empire clashed with them in relatively recent times so accounts are still fresh.

Which outside country would have any recollection of Mauryans other than specialist historians who's job it is to dig up some understanding of long distant past?

 

[Mamoon]

We have one Abhinandan and we have erected a statute in his honor in the PAF museum.

India would probably need to construct 10 new museums to honor the 90,000+ Pakistani PoWs from 1971.

 

[Napa]

Why would the rest of the world remember Mauryans?

Of all Indian empires, the Mauryan Empire left behind the greatest legacy to the modern world in the form of Buddhism spread by Ashoka to other Asian countries.

Mughal empire is fresh in the memory because the great British empire clashed with them in relatively recent times so accounts are still fresh.

Your knowledge of British history is very poor. The Marathas ended the power of the Mughals by 1717. British power in India began with the Battle of Plassey 1757.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Of all Indian empires, the Mauryan Empire left behind the greatest legacy to the modern world in the form of Buddhism spread by Ashoka to other Asian countries.



Your knowledge of British history is very poor. The Marathas ended the power of the Mughals by 1717. British power in India began with the Battle of Plassey 1757.

Buddhism is indeed a legacy, but in the west you won't hear Mauryan empire being given credit for it. You know this as well as I do. Buddhism is more associated with Nepal and Thailand globally. Hinduism is more related to India.

British history doesn't really cover the Imperial period in much detail, but generally it is portrayed as a battle with other European powers and the Mughals when it comes to India. I have never seen or heard anything about Marathas.

 

[Napa]

British history doesn't really cover the Imperial period in much detail, but generally it is portrayed as a battle with other European powers and the Mughals when it comes to India. I have never seen or heard anything about Marathas.

Given your state of ignorance, you are really should not post what "British history" is or is not.

No real historian portrays it as "a battle with other European powers and the Mughals when it comes to India".

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Given your state of ignorance, you are really should not post what "British history" is or is not.

No real historian portrays it as "a battle with other European powers and the Mughals when it comes to India".

I am telling you what is taught in British schools, I also told you that it Britain's history of empire wasn't really covered in much detail, at least not when it came to India. If you think I am in a state of ignorance, then I wonder what you would think of the average Brit who thinks Britain brought civilisation to India?

 

[uberkoen]

I don't really understand the issue here. People just love to complain. This is just how it is. One community considers the man a hero and the other a villain. Take Tipu Sultan for example. He's considered a hero back home and there was even a TV show about him on PTV back in the day. However, in reality, the man persecuted Hindu's and Christians and carried out forced conversions.

Fact of the matter is the man is perceived in two different lights by two different communities. You wouldn't expect Bollywood to come out with a movie showing Tipu Sultan as a hero but you would expect something like this to come out from Pakistan

...and that is all it is here.

 

[big_gamer007]

Seems like Bollywood knows how to needle and frustrate British Pakistanis.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't really understand the issue here. People just love to complain. This is just how it is. One community considers the man a hero and the other a villain. Take Tipu Sultan for example. He's considered a hero back home and there was even a TV show about him on PTV back in the day. However, in reality, the man persecuted Hindu's and Christians and carried out forced conversions.

Fact of the matter is the man is perceived in two different lights by two different communities. You wouldn't expect Bollywood to come out with a movie showing Tipu Sultan as a hero but you would expect something like this to come out from Pakistan

...and that is all it is here.

There isn't any issue here. You yourself have said two different communities are going to view the same characters in different light. So what is your problem?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Seems like Bollywood knows how to needle and frustrate British Pakistanis.

Why would we be frustrated? British Pakistanis, and indeed Pakistanis all over the world are free to give their opinions, whether you like them or not. I suppose that is one of the bonuses of creation of Pakistan, we don't have to quietly watch our places of worship being demolished then rubber stamped by the courts like Indian Muslims do.

 

[JaDed]

I don't really understand the issue here. People just love to complain. This is just how it is. One community considers the man a hero and the other a villain. Take Tipu Sultan for example. He's considered a hero back home and there was even a TV show about him on PTV back in the day. However, in reality, the man persecuted Hindu's and Christians and carried out forced conversions.

Fact of the matter is the man is perceived in two different lights by two different communities. You wouldn't expect Bollywood to come out with a movie showing Tipu Sultan as a hero but you would expect something like this to come out from Pakistan

...and that is all it is here.

We had a show abt him too , sword of tipu sultan , he was shown positive in it

 

[andy0204]

Why would we be frustrated? British Pakistanis, and indeed Pakistanis all over the world are free to give their opinions, whether you like them or not. I suppose that is one of the bonuses of creation of Pakistan, we don't have to quietly watch our places of worship being demolished then rubber stamped by the courts like Indian Muslims do.

Do you think Indian Muslims have being queit?
Sunni Waqf Board will take decision on 26 Nov whether to take the land or not.
If not they can file a review petition.

 

[Akki malhotra]

Do you think Indian Muslims have being queit?
Sunni Waqf Board will take decision on 26 Nov whether to take the land or not.
If not they can file a review petition.

If they want to review it. They should. But i would urge then hindus side as well. Let's review all the things altogether. All the temples, mosques need to be reviewed. If there was mosque earlier and hindus built temple by destroying then mosque should be built and if vice versa then let it be.

Dnt be selective. Our Muslim brothers need to be happy and satisfied. It's duty of majority living in country. Let's review all the temples and mosques in the country.

 

[andy0204]

If they want to review it. They should. But i would urge then hindus side as well. Let's review all the things altogether. All the temples, mosques need to be reviewed. If there was mosque earlier and hindus built temple by destroying then mosque should be built and if vice versa then let it be.

Dnt be selective. Our Muslim brothers need to be happy and satisfied. It's duty of majority living in country. Let's review all the temples and mosques in the country.

Why you are getting angry I just said they will file or accept the land?

 

[troodon]

They saved many ignorant people from a terribe way of life.

Its Muslims in India which to this day have the great monuments and history of India. Nobody remembers or knows of the so called great Hindu empires. Muslims took the land to become the 2nd richest in the world.

It would be better for India to introduce real genuine history in schools not some Bollywood fantasy to keep the fools happy.

Btw If Muslims were invaders, take down their history. Rip up the Taj Mahal but no, you need it for tourism.

India had some big issues going on like Caste system and Sati. Thankfully Brits banned the Sati. Islamic invaders did not do anything about it.

If this is the case, then America is doing good to Middle East by saving non-muslims, Apostates and LGBT people from Sharia law. You should be welcoming the Western nations in to Islamic lands.

 

[JaDed]

This is where Chinese were ahead, destroyed everything, cultural revolution ended up being a boon to Chinese.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India had some big issues going on like Caste system and Sati. Thankfully Brits banned the Sati. Islamic invaders did not do anything about it.

If this is the case, then America is doing good to Middle East by saving non-muslims, Apostates and LGBT people from Sharia law. You should be welcoming the Western nations in to Islamic lands.

Islamic invaders tried to ban Sati as well, but gave up when they faced stiff opposition. British rule was different in that they only really wanted to be supervisers and facilitate transfer of resources back to Britain, they weren't really interested in India itself.

 

[troodon]

Islamic invaders tried to ban Sati as well, but gave up when they faced stiff opposition. British rule was different in that they only really wanted to be supervisers and facilitate transfer of resources back to Britain, they weren't really interested in India itself.

Muslims were in power just like British. They did not care about Sati like British did. They were self indulgent and cared about power and conversion.

 

[Kroll]

We have one Abhinandan and we have erected a statute in his honor in the PAF museum.

India would probably need to construct 10 new museums to honor the 90,000+ Pakistani PoWs from 1971.

If we're going to goad each other about Abhi bhai and 71, then the Abhinandan incident is more apt as hardly any of us would have been born in 71 or would have been too young to really recall events.

Abhinandan only recently happened where we could all sit and watch the events unfold on TV. So it is more relevant for the Pak supporting PPers to brag to their PPer peers on the Indian side of the fence.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Why would the rest of the world remember Mauryans? Do you think they teach Hindutva history lessons outside of India? Mughal empire is fresh in the memory because the great British empire clashed with them in relatively recent times so accounts are still fresh.

Which outside country would have any recollection of Mauryans other than specialist historians who's job it is to dig up some understanding of long distant past?

Indians need to look long and hard in their illustratious history to find something great. Its just a pity that all they can find is Mauryans. Reality is that probably not many in India would know about it.
Outside India, indians and their history doesnt really get much (if any) attention. Being a Pakistani (of Indian origin) i find this underwhelming. But hey that’s reality.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why would we be frustrated? British Pakistanis, and indeed Pakistanis all over the world are free to give their opinions, whether you like them or not. I suppose that is one of the bonuses of creation of Pakistan, we don't have to quietly watch our places of worship being demolished then rubber stamped by the courts like Indian Muslims do.

And we dont have to watch UN terrorists roaming around in our country.

Thanks to Sardar that he refused to give into the demands of Jinnah.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Indians need to look long and hard in their illustratious history to find something great. Its just a pity that all they can find is Mauryans. Reality is that probably not many in India would know about it.
Outside India, indians and their history doesnt really get much (if any) attention. Being a Pakistani (of Indian origin) i find this underwhelming. But hey that’s reality.

Then you need to read more.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Tch tch you need to read even more because Mairyans is an unknown entity to most of the world.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Khali wo hi movie bana skata hai wo director jo bikta hai market mein mostly hindus want to see ??baki sab toh nanga nach chalta hai bollywood mein sale sari movies hamare south ke remake karte hai

So Abdali did great things to India? Did he?

And whats this hamara south? Is it separate from India?

 

[JaDed]

Tch tch you need to read even more because Mairyans is an unknown entity to most of the world.

Who are known entity as per you?