The real Alaudin- Khilji

Page

Next Last

1011128

Suspended

Posted: 8 years ago

First look at real pic

Then look at this jungli that SLB showed

Why was there need to make him like this and distort history?

Quote

Frequent Posters

ImagineMe

@ImagineMe

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 8 years ago

Because Game of Thrones hadn't released in 1295.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Flame.

@Flame.

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 8 years ago

I had the same thought when I first saw the first look of Ranveer as Khilji. Guess, SLB is fascinated by villains with silky, long locks 😆

Quote

1011128

Suspended

Posted: 8 years ago

More I search more I think SLB motivation was political. I think he was just another ruler and it is true rulers are cruel. But this padmavati ...jauhar crap is nonsense, lie that never existed. Its farce. lol

These are INDIAN historians

https://www.easterneye.eu/padmaavat-distorts-history-barbaric-alauddin-khilji-depiction/

Historian Rana Safvi believes that Khilji was anything but savage. It was under his rule the Delhi Sultanate heavily drew from Persia, one of the oldest and most sophisticated civilisations of all time, she said.

"The rulers followed the exact code of conduct and etiquette as in Persia. It would have been very formal the eating, dining and sartorial choices, Safvi said.

Safvi added that the barbarism the film depicts in Khilji is to only show him as a villain and Shahid Kapoor's Ratan Singh as a sophisticated rival.

"Khilji was aware he was cruel but he was not the kind to be running after women and then conquering kingdoms. He was only interested in expansions and conquests, she said.

Edited by hippopotamus - 8 years ago

Quote

1011128

Suspended

Posted: 8 years ago

https://thewire.in/203518/INDIA-GRATEFUL-ALAUDDIN-KHILJI-THWARTING-MONGOL-INVASIONS/

At a time when most of the medieval world was laid waste by the brutality of the Mongol armies, Khilji kept India and its culture and civilisation safe.

Against this backdrop, one can safely argue that Alauddin Khilji, for all his faults, actually saved the syncretic culture of the Indian subcontinent of that time which included Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, and Jain subcultures from enormous destruction, even if preserving the culture of India may not have been what motivated his resistance to the Mongols.

The Mongols did not just invade and conquer; they exterminated civilisations. To give just an idea, during Genghis's invasion of the Persian Empire, these were the number of people put to death in some of the cities overcome by the Mongols in 1222 CE: Urgench, 1 million; Merv, 700,000; Nishapur, 1.7 million; Rey, 500,000 (an estimate based on the order that every male should be killed in a city of approximately a million people); and Herat, 1.6 million. That's nearly 6 million people just from these cities, at a time when the world population is estimated at 400 million. In other words, the Mongols are said to have killed 1.5% of the world population in a single campaign.

Alauddin Khilji was born in Delhi in 1266 CE, lived his entire life in the Indian subcontinent, and ruled as sultan of Delhi from 1296 CE 1316 CE. By any definition, he would have to be called an Indian monarch, not a foreign invader. As a ruler, he would prove himself to be one of India's greatest warrior kings and one of the world's great military geniuses.

Khilji, by his military brilliance, managed to defeat the Mongols not once, but five times, and avoided defeat a sixth time even when taken by surprise, as the Mongols attacked with massive forces.

Was Alauddin Khilji a bigot?

The story of Alauddin Khilji shows us that we need to understand history in its entirety. Just as most Indians are unaware of Alauddin Khilji's role in stopping many Mongol invasions, even the image of Khilji as someone who persecuted Hindus is based on an incomplete understanding of history.

To be sure, Khilji was an extremely cruel, suspicious and vindictive man, and meted out barbaric punishments to those who antagonised him. But his cruelty was impartial, and made no distinction between Hindus and Muslims.

Historians are generally agreed that while Alauddin Khilji was a cruel despot, he was not a bigot. He was a pragmatist.

Quote

1011128

Suspended

Posted: 8 years ago

I am liking the bravery of Khilji

I mean defeating Mongols ...is something special.

Yes I understand that he killed people but then problem is that in older days we cannot apply current standards ...world has changed...I am sure even local Indian rulers were cruel ...He is hated because he defeated them and ruled them. lol

I dont know why but this guy is impressing me more and more ...mainly because of bravery

No article i have read talks about sex slave and all.,.thats a big lie by SLB.

Edited by hippopotamus - 8 years ago

Quote

Justmoi

@Justmoi

Rocker

Posted: 8 years ago

Now Hippo even a Hippo in the wild must have heard of Game of Thrones and Khal Drogo. That is who SLB patterned his Khilji if you ask me. That is why I cannot appreciate Ranveer's effort, I've seen better.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 8 years ago

Cinematic liberty of embellishing villains to extremes.

Quote

Twisterfry

@Twisterfry

Explorer

Posted: 8 years ago

Ironically despite all the theatrics I didn't find ranveer menacing at all onscreen. It would have worked better if everything was more subtle.

Quote

668837

Hibernated

Posted: 8 years ago

#10

Originally posted by: hippopotamus
I am liking the bravery of Khilji

I mean defeating Mongols ...is something special.

Yes I understand that he killed people but then problem is that in older days we cannot apply current standards ...world has changed...I am sure even local Indian rulers were cruel ...He is hated because he defeated them and ruled them. lol

I dont know why but this guy is impressing me more and more ...mainly because of bravery

No article i have read talks about sex slave and all.,.thats a big lie by SLB.

There are several pieces of proof about him taking sex slaves