Queen Padmini of Chittor- a corner of Indian history.

[HindaviSwarajya]

All bullshit third grade account if it says Rani Padmavati did not do jauhar and do not take any muzzie historians account. TV documentary they showed place of battlefield and the samadhi of the 2 brave warriers who helped escape padmavatis husband from the capture but died in the process. All of the things are there. The place where jauhar was done by 16000 queens still you can find remains/burnt ornaments of those brave women and these are historical facts not some third grade poetry by khusro who will write what his king wants to. Whatever Rajputs are saying is true.

And by the way the kutub minar was build by kuttubuddin as per sme historians who ruled delhi just for 4 Yrs and it was immpossible to build this. This was not mentioned even in his autobiography. Cong govt discarded archeological findings when hindu daities were found on excavation site and inscription written on iron piler tht it was built by hindu king is there. Commies and congressies have taken muslim and britiesh written false history on face value. While truth is very different. If you read books by PN oak you will get hundreds of proofs of kutub minar red fort etc being hindu.monuments modified with just islamic inscriptions.

 

[HindaviSwarajya]

historian-invited-watch-padmavati-raises-glaring-inaccuracies

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/movie...glaring-inaccuracies-cbfc-1119223-2017-12-30?

 

[spikey360]

One fails to understand why Law and Order problems seem insignificant and worthy of ignorance by the Supreme Court.
Is freedom of expression more important than the Right to Life?

 

[ashdoc]

I wonder why no one protested in Maharashtra when they showed Bajirao & Kashi bai dancing.

Bajirao was a Brahmin and no one gives shit for Brahmin pride in Maharashtra.

If they show shivaji and his wife dancing then there will be real violence in Maharashtra.

 

[Rashna]

This isn't about dancing... Padmavat is in fact a sequel to Bajirao Mastani. How you may ask?
Bajirao a marathi brahmin won all wars and spirited away a muslim rajput woman who lived and died as his concubine.
Padmavat lays bare the fact Rajput women had to commit suicide to save their honor, such was the great valor of the Rajputs that their women were not safe and died to save their honor.
Factoid: Marathas lost in Panipat because the brave Rajputs sided with muslims.
Conclusion: If Rajputs hadn't backstabbed Marathas their women wouldn't have died on funeral pyres.
So much for pride and valour, now you can see why the karni sena is butt hurt. Bajirao the valiant warrior v/s the Rajput valor which needs suicide. Which one is the winner?

DISCLAIMER: Everyone should use their own creative licence to dissect this matter. This is purely my endeavor to do the same.

Bajirao was a Brahmin and no one gives shit for Brahmin pride in Maharashtra.

If they show shivaji and his wife dancing then there will be real violence in Maharashtra.

 

[ashdoc]

This isn't about dancing... Padmavat is in fact a sequel to Bajirao Mastani. How you may ask?
Bajirao a marathi brahmin won all wars and spirited away a muslim rajput woman who lived and died as his concubine.
Padmavat lays bare the fact Rajput women had to commit suicide to save their honor, such was the great valor of the Rajputs that their women were not safe and died to save their honor.
Factoid: Marathas lost in Panipat because the brave Rajputs sided with muslims.
Conclusion: If Rajputs hadn't backstabbed Marathas their women wouldn't have died on funeral pyres.
So much for pride and valour, now you can see why the karni sena is butt hurt. Bajirao the valiant warrior v/s the Rajput valor which needs suicide. Which one is the winner?

DISCLAIMER: Everyone should use their own creative licence to dissect this matter. This is purely my endeavor to do the same.

Bajirao didn't spirit away rajput Muslim mastani. She herself came for him with permission from her rajput father---according to the film bajirao mastani. He wanted to marry her and not keep her as concubine. But his family and Brahmins refused to solmenise the marriage because she was Muslim.

 

[Rashna]

Bhansali films are not historically accurate. Moreover there was no question of solemnizing any marriage. A hindu brahmin has only 1 wife. Even now if a hindu wants to call a second woman his wife it is illegal. You should do your own research on Mastani.

Bajirao didn't spirit away rajput Muslim mastani. She herself came for him with permission from her rajput father---according to the film bajirao mastani. He wanted to marry her and not keep her as concubine. But his family and Brahmins refused to solmenise the marriage because she was Muslim.

 

[James-bond]

This isn't about dancing... Padmavat is in fact a sequel to Bajirao Mastani. How you may ask?
Bajirao a marathi brahmin won all wars and spirited away a muslim rajput woman who lived and died as his concubine.
Padmavat lays bare the fact Rajput women had to commit suicide to save their honor, such was the great valor of the Rajputs that their women were not safe and died to save their honor.
Factoid: Marathas lost in Panipat because the brave Rajputs sided with muslims.
Conclusion: If Rajputs hadn't backstabbed Marathas their women wouldn't have died on funeral pyres.
So much for pride and valour, now you can see why the karni sena is butt hurt. Bajirao the valiant warrior v/s the Rajput valor which needs suicide. Which one is the winner?

DISCLAIMER: Everyone should use their own creative licence to dissect this matter. This is purely my endeavor to do the same.

Don't twist facts as your wish there are always TRAITORS in any Kingdom/party ... Even Prophet Mohammed's ALL wives and children were killed by his own followers and they talk about Ummah-chummah /Brotherhood and what not!

Didn't study much about Jihadi mogals but some Jaffer guy cheated and sided with British!!

Anyway, cheap Brothelwood given too much importance by Indians which is why we are suffering by their arrogance.

 

[Haldiram]

Bhansali films are not historically accurate. Moreover there was no question of solemnizing any marriage. A hindu brahmin has only 1 wife. Even now if a hindu wants to call a second woman his wife it is illegal. You should do your own research on Mastani.

@ashdoc 's version is more accurate. Whatever be the contemporary social custom, the monarch always was exception to the rule, be it Hindu or Muslim or whatever.

Muslim monarchs consumed alcohol, hashish and enjoyed music, even though it was prohibited by Islam.

One ought to look at how it happened, instead of what must have happened.

There are Rajputs who sided with Muslim invaders. They converted and became Muslims. There are Rajputs who fought Muslims. They continue to remain Rajputs. These are two different groups of Rajputs. There's no need to blame Hindu Rajputs for the traitors who converted. Even today, Hindu Rajputs don't make marital alliances with people who converted out. So they are not the same group even though 'Muslim Rajputs' keep brandishing that tag.

 

[Rashna]

You have less knowledge of Maharashtrian Brahmin culture. This is why i say do not go by bhansali's history.
Coming out of the past i do not see any valour in that women had to burn themselves to save their honor. By creating convenient alliances with muslims the rajputs essentially built their own funeral pyres.
i read something which kind of sums up their approach to things. They weren't interested in the final result, all that mattered was honor. Now you know why jauhar didn't happen in maharashtra.

"A Rajput warrior, as long as he does not dishonour his race, seems almost indifferent to the result of any contest he is engaged in. A Maratta thinks of nothing but the result, and cares little for the means, if he can attain his object. For this purpose he will strain his wits, renounce his pleasures, and hazard his person; but he has not a conception of sacrificing his life, or even his interest for a point of honour".

@ashdoc 's version is more accurate. Whatever be the contemporary social custom, the monarch always was exception to the rule, be it Hindu or Muslim or whatever. Even Shivaji had 4 wives.

It was prohibited in Islam to even admit the presence of other religions but Dara Shiko did translate Hindu scriptures.

One ought to look at how it happened, instead of what must have happened.

There are Rajputs who sided with Muslim invaders. They converted and became Muslims. There are Rajputs who fought Muslims. They continue to remain Rajputs. These are two different groups of Rajputs. There's no need to blame Hindu Rajputs for the traitors who converted. Even today, Hindu Rajputs don't make marital alliances with people who converted out. So they are not the same group even though 'Muslim Rajputs' keep brandishing that tag.

 

[Haldiram]

You have less knowledge of Maharashtrian Brahmin culture. This is why i say do not go by bhansali's history.
Coming out of the past i do not see any valour in that women had to burn themselves to save their honor. By creating convenient alliances with muslims the rajputs essentially built their own funeral pyres.
i read something which kind of sums up their approach to things. They weren't interested in the final result, all that mattered was honor. Now you know why jauhar didn't happen in maharashtra.

"A Rajput warrior, as long as he does not dishonour his race, seems almost indifferent to the result of any contest he is engaged in. A Maratta thinks of nothing but the result, and cares little for the means, if he can attain his object. For this purpose he will strain his wits, renounce his pleasures, and hazard his person; but he has not a conception of sacrificing his life, or even his interest for a point of honour".

What happened : The Titanic bumped into ice and sank.

Your description of what happened : The Titanic is a story of brave lobsters who were kidnapped from the ocean and imprisoned aboard a big metal ship. This is a breathtaking story of how those lobsters fight their way to freedom when an unexpected turn of events sinks the ship they were being imprisoned in, giving them a new lease of freedom back to their homes. Watch the breathtaking story of these brave lobsters in IMAX full Dolby DTS. Advance booking for tickets has started.

People : But..but..it's the story of a ship.

You : You have no idea about lobster culture.

 

[Rashna]

You are as lost a cause as Rajput valor is in Padmavati. lol

What happened : The Titanic bumped into ice and sank.

Your description of what happened : The Titanic is a story of brave lobsters who were kidnapped from the ocean and imprisoned aboard a big metal ship. This is a breathtaking story of how those brave lobsters fight their way to freedom when an unexpected turn of events sinks the ship they were being imprisoned in, giving them a new lease of freedom to their homes. Watch in IMAX full Dolby. Advance booking for tickets has started.

 

[Haldiram]

You are as lost a cause as Rajput valor is in Padmavati. lol

You have no interest in Historical facts. You peddle whatever suits your casteist agenda.

No one in pre-independence India was purely Hindu or Muslim. Nizam joined forces with local Hindu warlords against Mughals. Marathas joined forces with Shias against Mughals. Mughals joined forces with Rajputs against Shias. Marathas took weapons from the French and fought the British. Tipu Sultan also took weapons from the French and fought the British, but Marathas and Tipu Sultan also fought with each other.

The artillery chief of Marathas was a Shia Muslim. By your iodine-deficient logic, that would mean that the Marathas were pro-Muslim? And Mughals teamed up with Rajputs so Mughals were pro-Hindu? Maratha's took weapons from the French so they were pro Christian?

It was a complicated landscape, not to be oversimplified with childish binaries. Only an outright dimwit or a Punekar will peddle this Marxist narrative.

 

[Rashna]

You are not going to convince me that valor can be defined by a woman burning herself on a funeral pyre. I am neither a marxist nor a punekar and i have a right to express myself without being labeled anything. As for the rest of your diatribe it hardly has anything to do with Padmavat and karni sena. However i am glad that i made you think of these things. The result of a war is important and history remembers the result not aggrandized honor killing.

You have no interest in Historical facts. You peddle whatever suits your casteist agenda.

No one in pre-independence India was purely Hindu or Muslim. Nizam joined forces with local Hindu warlords against Mughals. Marathas joined forces with Shias against Mughals. Mughals joined forces with Rajputs against Shias. Marathas took weapons from the French and fought the British. Tipu Sultan also took weapons from the French and fought the British, but Marathas and Tipu Sultan also fought with each other.

The artillery chief of Marathas was a Shia Muslim. By your iodine-deficient logic, that would mean that the Marathas were pro-Muslim? And Mughals teamed up with Rajputs so Mughals were pro-Hindu? Maratha's took weapons from the French so they were pro Christian?

It was a complicated landscape, not to be oversimplified with childish binaries. Only an outright dimwit or a Punekar will peddle this Marxist narrative.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

The difference between your post and mine is that I gave an account of what happened while you put in the Hindu Muslim angle where there was none and made it sound like a crusade where there was none and also put in the Hindus worship Rani Padmini etc. Your intention was to demonize on religious grounds where there was none. It was one king trying to take over another kingdom and set his eyes on his beautiful wife, if at all.

Indian Muslims need to differentiate themselves from Invader Muslims. They were cruel and uncivilized. Why should any Muslim of India should be offended if anything is written about those barbaric uncivilized middle east or Afghan Muslims?

 

[HariPrasad-1]

So,one fine day the local rajputs just woke up and said "we will start worshiping the woman in this well written poem and construct a temple in her name?

The truth is that Jauhar is not a imaginary story and has happened many times.

And in those days oral history was given more value.

Juhar started from word Jay har which Brahmins shouted before fighting with Alexander.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Maoists demand

Ya maoist are great stalwarts of freedom and freedom of speech.

 

[James-bond]

It is not politically correct to support about these issues but for me India is still remain as Hindu (Non-Abrahamic) because Caste and Customs (Jauhar etc).

See Afghanistan - one of the center of Buddhist civilization now became Islamic-Taliban $hit hole.

Cant imagine myself toward worshiping some middle east desert-pedophile-terrorist put my ass-up daily 5 times and not allowed to criticize him even once else my own beheads me! .... What a Peaceful religion.

On funny side ... See how lorry driver(MAN) even in his blind side stopped the vehicle in micro seconds so that those two dumb girls live another day .....