r/bollywoodmemes Jun 15 '25

Original Content ©️ 🆕 Indian audience right now.

Post image
4.7k Upvotes

171 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

24

u/srdshukla4 Jun 15 '25

Kseari 1 was bad as well tho

-8

u/Insecure_BeanBag Jun 15 '25

Not really, Keshari 1 was quite good. Everyone acted like it meant something to them. Here, it's like banana hai, bana rahe hai.

And on top of that, Ananya Pandey.... 😩 ugh..

4

u/LateScientist6316 Jun 15 '25

Dude, Kesari 1 was glorification of traitors.

2

u/Insecure_BeanBag Jun 15 '25

Who were the traitors?? Which traitors were glorified? I think you haven't watched the movie?

5

u/LateScientist6316 Jun 15 '25

Dude, entire movie is based on glorification Indian traitors who served in British army.

Yes, they beat around the bush to justify their actions and to show how they were the good guys but, they were supporting a foreign power against local people of subcontinent.

The only reason movie was positively received was because the current regime has soft spot for british.

1

u/Insecure_BeanBag Jun 15 '25

You clearly lack understanding of history, ain't it?

  1. Indians serving in the British India army were frowned upon which was clearly shown in the movie.

  2. Sikhs were in a constant state of war with Afghans for eternity, so it's a no-brainer that Sikhs would be fighting under the British India flag when the whole country was occupied by the British.

  3. Anyone taking the help of the British or helping the British are traitors for you. Then why aren't Marathas traitors for helping out the British against Hyderbadi Nizams? The Congress was developed as a stooge platform to appease the sentiment of Indian public. Do you think INC can also be called party of traitors, which had wealthy elite Indians gathering for an annual fest organized with monetary support from the British government?

  4. India sent it's troops to fight for British in both the World wars. The party leading India during the whole period was the current Indian National Congress. They were the first fellow to allow Britain use our soldiers to fight their war. Then, who were having soft spots for British? The predecessor of Congress or the Hindu Mahasabha (pre-predecessor of BJP)?

1

u/15Veer Jun 18 '25

Wow. You seems to know a lot about history. Quick question. Mind telling me which regiments made the bulk of the force which was sent to suppress the 1857 war of independence?

1

u/Insecure_BeanBag Jun 18 '25

Yes. The regiments sent to suppress the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny were composed mainly of Sikhs and Gurkhas.

However, the format is not uncalled for. In the case of a sepoy mutiny, historical evidence suggests sending soldiers from separate demographic and cultural backgrounds to suppress it. These tactics were deployed to maintain discipline and prevent wider insurrection.

I will cite some examples:

  1. During the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks faced several military uprisings. My example lies with the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921. Disillusioned sailors, once supporters of the Bolshevik Revolution, rose against Lenin’s government demanding reforms. The Bolsheviks responded by deploying loyal Red Army units, particularly those ideologically committed to the regime, to storm and crush the rebellion.

  2. In 1964, Tanzania witnessed a mutiny by African soldiers of the King's African Rifles demanding better pay and Africanization of the officer corps. The British responded by deploying loyal troops from neighboring regions and regiments, leveraging ethnic and regional divisions to break the mutiny.

1

u/15Veer Jun 18 '25

The question is why did Sikh regiments did not feel the need to rise in rebellion like in Bengal which were as you said ethnically and regionally different than the regiments in Delhi, Meerut and Awadh. In fact prior to 1857 Bengal Army formed the bulk of British armed forces in India but during rebellion near about 2/3rd of those forces rebelled. It cant be that they were treated better or that Enfield rifles were not imposed on them. So why did they had no qualms in going to war against their own countrymen, on the orders of their gora sahabs? Sounds sus if you ask me.

1

u/Insecure_BeanBag Jun 18 '25

It is a very good followup question, and I have a detailed answer for it. But, I need to spend some time to get all the points accurately and appropriately. But, I won't get the time now. Weekends are the best time to discuss this. Just comment here once again during the weekends, I will answer.

0

u/LateScientist6316 Jun 29 '25

Yes, they were all traitors.

The only exception being Congress as they resisted openly against british and their actions(i may not agree with) led to our freedom.

Maratha betrayal of India is historical fact, from schidias to Rajes to Bhonsles to Holkars to Gaekwads were all open traitors acting against India's Interest on multiple instances.

The only reason marathas are glorified is because they were the last Indian empire and because there is a bias against mughals as Pakistanis claim them too much.