Marathas In Wikipedia

[chhokaranwala]

'racist forerunner of the KKK' :gg: ?

Im not sure what connection you can make between a regional/tribal army to the modern day RSS - sorry to offend you but thats taking things just a little bit too far for me -

They used to call themselves Deccanis as opposed to Hindustanis by the way - The Battle of Wadgoan was a big blow to British prestige - and the first Anglo Maratha war produced no real winners - intereseting to note that the British waited almost thirty years after this war and after the Marathas has nearly three years of civil war before beginning the Second Anglo Maratha war

Many of the early Misls also ran on the 'rakhi' system - it had nothing to to do racism or hate but just the way warrior groups used to operate in that day

As far as I see it there was as much coperaration with the Marathas as well as conflict - it was a time of the survival of the fittest and before the rise of Maharaja Ranjit Singh some Sikhs even used to fight each other - I mean look at people like the Rajahs of Patiala _ although they were part of the Khalsa Panth they were always up to no good even allying with the British against the Sikh Empire

Luckily people like that are a virtual footnote in Sikh history and only the true warriors and shaheeds are remembered like Baba Deep Singh and Hari Singh Nalwa

[HSD*^]

lol not all the marathas were racist KKK types, but the maratha confederacy did shelter groups who took part in pogroms against lower castes or 'dravidians'. i do see a similarity between that and how hindustan nowadays lets the RSS run around and get up to all sorts.

as for sikhs fighting each other, well thats no surprise. get enough of us together and something always kicks off. its quite sad how we are so turbulent and volatile considering the knowledge the gurus gave us.

Wagwoan was a blow to prestige but it wasnt a comprehensive defeat. it just showed to the english that their commanders were as stupid and arrogant as anyone elses. the british were in no rush to take over india. they always played the long game. considering how young the indian states were it proabably made sense. someone could try and do it to europe today as well if they had the resources and institutions to carry it out over a few centuries.

the point i'm getting at is that after the defeat at the hands of the afghans, the maharattas stuck to central and south india. the sikh states stayed in northern and western india. our histories before british domination were completely seperate. they stayed in their part and we stayed in ours. hindus wouldn like it if i went around saying it was sikhs who trained shiva ji to fight mughals or that we ruled all of india before the british or other made up crap.

[kuthaman]

There is a whole controversey how these folks twist history. Distortion of history is big in India.

[chhokaranwala]

your right bro - but we should be the last people to be involved in distorting it even more - even if its to settle with the RSS

The Marathas had a more or less seperate history from the Sikhs but at the same time to get back to the point of the topic starter their acheivements do not take away from Sikh acheivements and we dont need to be distroting history ourselves

they had some great leaders like Shivaji their founder and then Baji Rao who broke a very large section of the Mughal Empire in the 1730 s . even at the end they had people like Mahadji Sindhia who after the Battle of Panipat brought the Marathas back to Delhi and even had a treaty with some Sikh leaders. It was after he died that the Marathas went into civil war and allowed the British to step in.

I dont think they even used the word Dravidans in thoese days by the way - so your assumption that they went on pogroms against them is a little unsound - indeed apart from Maharashtra itself most of their empire was based in what was called Hindustan in those days.

Did you know that there were some groups of Sikhs who were actually in the Maratha amy in the Second Anglo Maratha war of 1803

The Sikhs were less concerned with Delhi as our focus was more around Amritsar and Lahore where the most powerful Misls were centered - remember Punjab was a lot bigger in those days and Lahore was a huge city

[HSD*^]

your right bro - but we should be the last people to be involved in distorting it even more - even if its to settle with the RSS

The Marathas had a more or less seperate history from the Sikhs but at the same time to get back to the point of the topic starter their acheivements do not take away from Sikh acheivements and we dont need to be distroting history ourselves

they had some great leaders like Shivaji their founder and then Baji Rao who broke a very large section of the Mughal Empire in the 1730 s . even at the end they had people like Mahadji Sindhia who after the Battle of Panipat brought the Marathas back to Delhi and even had a treaty with some Sikh leaders. It was after he died that the Marathas went into civil war and allowed the British to step in.

I dont think they even used the word Dravidans in thoese days by the way - so your assumption that they went on pogroms against them is a little unsound - indeed apart from Maharashtra itself most of their empire was based in what was called Hindustan in those days.

Did you know that there were some groups of Sikhs who were actually in the Maratha amy in the Second Anglo Maratha war of 1803

The Sikhs were less concerned with Delhi as our focus was more around Amritsar and Lahore where the most powerful Misls were centered - remember Punjab was a lot bigger in those days and Lahore was a huge city

now i am sure you havent been reading my posts. i have said before that if the RSS distort our history i have the right to reply with the truth. my preaching the truth i am not distorting their history, i'm just saying how it is. the maratha 'achievements' did not include ruling as much of northern india as they say they did.

they did go on pogroms, its chronicled in history books about bengal and south india. attacking poor farmers isnt a history they should be proud of. just because the marathas took land off a declining empire or managed to tarnish an enemy's prestige is not enough to give them respect. definitely more so as we are the descendants of the khalsa raj. you dont see the english embellishing french history or vice-versa do we? we ruled north india with impunity. they tried to stop us marching into delhi but we still did it. that map is an unbelievable lie. and at the end of the maharatta kingdom, some of them fled to the punjab, and we turned them over to the british. as for sikhs serving in their army, well hell, give a sikh enough money and they'll fight for anyone.

[chhokaranwala]

history is not black and white

many of the Sikhs Misls also ruled territory by applying Rakhi - which in essence is a form of blackmail - ie you pay or die

we had also become chronically divided before the rise of Ranjit Singh and were as busy bashing each other as any enemies and some were committing all sorts of evil deeds - It took a powerhouse like Ranjit Singh to discpline them. Even then its interesting to note that the Sikh Rajahs like Patiala and Nabha never joined the Sikh Empire - first dilly dallying with the Marathas and then with the British

in 1785 the Sikhs of the Malwa Misls signed a treaty with the Maratha Mahadji Sindhia who was then ruling Delhi

like I said I cant understand people who want to diss others for the sake of feeling better about themselves - that is not the Sikh way

[HSD*^]

history is not black and white

many of the Sikhs Misls also ruled territory by applying Rakhi - which in essence is a form of blackmail - ie you pay or die

we had also become chronically divided before the rise of Ranjit Singh and were as busy bashing each other as any enemies and some were committing all sorts of evil deeds - It took a powerhouse like Ranjit Singh to discpline them. Even then its interesting to note that the Sikh Rajahs like Patiala and Nabha never joined the Sikh Empire - first dilly dallying with the Marathas and then with the British

in 1785 the Sikhs of the Malwa Misls signed a treaty with the Maratha Mahadji Sindhia who was then ruling Delhi

like I said I cant understand people who want to diss others for the sake of feeling better about themselves - that is not the Sikh way

and i'm not dissing anyone. i'm proud of sikh history and i dont like it when its twisted. those treaties signed with the maharattas were pointless as we broke most of them less than a month after signing them. as for the sikh kings, well i wasnt saying they were sants. but they're not the ones who are distorting our history or trying to assimilate our religion. even maharaja ranjit singh himself was unbelievable if you look into what he did outside of the battlefield. but i'll never deny that. i believe in the truth of history, and i will always preach the truth of it as that is the honest way. and if i see a lie dont expect me to sit around quietly. now that is the sikh way.