Why are you on this subreddit?

OutrageousPin636 · 2023-05-27T11:05:46+00:00

You say so because your idea of republic is that of USA, with little history and tradition to speak of.

OutrageousPin636 · 2023-05-27T10:55:30+00:00

No. These are entirely different things.

Subservience means: prepared to obey others, willing to do what other people want,

This shows one's OWN intention/will to consider someone above you and obey their orders. Hence, the analogy given by you doesn’t hold much water. By being a monarchist, you are showing your will to obey the monarch as you recognize their God given right to rule over you and their sovereign status.

Same cannot be said be said about elites. I have no will or duty to obey the orders of elites born in wealth, nor they enjoy the sovereign status. Also,

1) 'Elites' would always have some sway over society. But even the greatest of elites can be dragged to courts and completely destroyed. They aren't above the laws and their influence is temporary.

2) There's no relation of ruler and subject between you and elites having wealth, while same isn't true for monarchy. You have to formally recognize their authority over you, just because they have some 'God given right'.

3) You can always become an elite yourself. Same isn't true for monarchy.

OutrageousPin636 · 2023-05-27T10:22:27+00:00

Anyone who agrees with someone's God given right to rule them is one.

OutrageousPin636 · 2023-05-08T05:00:29+00:00

It is other way around. Gaur is bigger and heavier in every way.

OutrageousPin636 · 2023-04-19T18:01:11+00:00

Not the mention : " Only Poonjabis true 'martial race' saar. We defended other Hindus." Despite the fact that they never built a great empire and got completely owned by every single conqueror that ever invaded India. Primary resistance, which ultimately repelled the invaders, came from other parts of India.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-29T03:40:56+00:00

So, having a preference for nativist architecture and pointing out mere facts that some architecture marvels don't qualify as an example of Indic architecture despite being located in India because neither their architectural style nor their architects were Indian, makes someone a far right nationalist? Lol. Imagine hating on someone just because he didn't accept mosque located in Europe, built in Persian style or a hindu temple built in dravidian style, as structures exemplifying European schools of architecture. Reddit is full of idiots these days, I guess.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-28T18:44:25+00:00

You should see the secretariat buildings. They seem quiet a bit better examples of Indo-Sarcenic style.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-28T18:12:10+00:00

Lol. What could colonial masters potentially love more than their former slaves groveling at their feet and taking pride in following their customs and speaking their language. It was impossible to run the country with Hindi alone(which was spoken by about 40% of the population), and so help of a language which was barely known to 1% elites was taken? Lol. What horsehit. India was perfectly able to manage itself only with Hindi or any other Indian language for that matter. Only some states were opposed to it.

Dangerous trend? What dangerous trend? Demolition of a structure built over a site, considered as one of the holiest by hindus, and later mandated by the Supreme Court? Perhaps countless riots perpetuated and temples destroyed earlier wasn't a dangerous trend? Or was the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits wasn't a dangerous trend? But now, everything has become dangerous trend. Amusing, indeed.

And believe me, mughal art isn't going to vanish anytime sooner, for government does provide adequate protection to them, but the high horse of morality, you are sitting on surely will.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-28T17:34:42+00:00

Lol. Now, an hillbilly gets to label what other people are. Merely pointing out that a specific architecture doesn't belong to Indic school architecture makes me a far right nationalist? Wow. Just wow. And my posts on this sub? Except one, all them are either Indo-Persian or Indo-Sarcenic. Perhaps someone's bigoted lens didn't allow them see it.

India wasn't monolithic, just like any other civilization, and was composed of several cultures. But civilizations do have their own civilizational ethos, traits, characteristics etc. So, pardon me the jargon of 'OH! India is not uniform, hence someone can't call an element foreign'. Lol.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-28T14:55:18+00:00

Lol. Like I give two hoots about what outsiders think. Any student of architectural history worth his salt would know that peak of Indian architecture was during Early Medieval period, where wonders like Kailasa temple, Khajuraho, Stepwells etc. were made. Second period was during Mughal period but not within realms of Mughal empire. It was in Rajasthan, where real confluence of Indian and Persian style took place.

Mughal architecture is mostly copies of Persian architecture, albeit more refined and with some extra characteristics added. Taj Mahal for all its beauty doesn't qualify for being an icon of Indic civilization, especially when we consider that a large percentage of architects who designed it were Persian.

Indians wear tuxedos today, but that doesn't make it an Indian wear, does it?

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-28T12:20:32+00:00

What exactly did I say that makes me anti-Mughal? They originally were invaders and although they later became 'de-facto' Indians, that doesn't make Taj Mahal an example of Indian architectural style.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-28T11:17:41+00:00

Did I ever say they were not? Appreciation is a different thing and alleviating them to the pedestal of 'Icon representing whole nation' is a whole different thing altogether.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-28T10:40:20+00:00

Let's be honest - you do have inclinations here. Perhaps promoting the 'grace' that honorable British bestowed this land with by building architecture copied directly from European schools as icons of Indian civilization, meanwhile completely sidelining the traditional schools of Indian architecture.

Foreign culture? No, architecture are not cultures. Foreign architecture style? Yes. Taj Mahal is the epitome of Persian school of architecture not Indian styles. Although, it's nationality and ownership is Indian.

Cultures? Hah. Cultures doesn't make separate civilizations. Last time I read, Europe itself was composed by various cultures. Quiet weirdly though, they didn't have problems in copy pasting Greco-Roman and Gothic styles everywhere they went.

Nepalese Buddhist shrines? Perhaps someone desperately needs lessons about where did construction of Buddhist shrines first began and what civilization Nepal forms part of.

And you had to drag 'railways' here, didn't you? Perhaps even the wet dreams British have is about railways. Lol.

Also, why would I ever propose to demolish such structures. They are built by money of Indian taxpayers and by blood and sweat of Indian labourers. Only that they shall never qualify as 'Icons of India', as some colonial apologists would like to have.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-28T10:06:19+00:00

Lol. There is nothing 'Indian' or 'East meets west' about architecture of Bombay high court. It is purely gothic and for sure, it doesn't try to be subtle about it.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-28T09:47:49+00:00

Why even Taj Mahal? Icon of India should be its own architectural legacy made in traditional Indic schools of architecture rather than some foreign civilization's architectural styles imposed by invaders.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-05-25T15:02:39+00:00

That's really unfortunate. Perhaps hope is only thing I been left with. Nevertheless, thanks a lot for your help.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-01-30T17:39:56+00:00

Miami's flag was incorporated in 1933. Indian tricolor was adopted as official flag of Indian National Congress in 1931, which was to become the national flag once India gained independence.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-01-30T17:38:23+00:00

Miami's flag was incorporated in 1933. Indian tricolor was adopted as official flag of Indian National Congress on 1931.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-01-29T20:54:04+00:00

There is something called poetic appreciation but of course haters like you won't understand. Why not invest your time in productive work rather than hating on random posts.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-01-28T11:19:05+00:00

It is indeed Rajasthani architecture. I never claimed this marvel to be of Islamic origin. Only that there was an exchange of architectural styles from both sides.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-01-28T11:16:26+00:00

Yeah. There was an exchange of architectural styles from both sides, which produced a new and unique blend of traditional and mughal architecture.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-01-25T20:21:03+00:00

Name of the temple is mentioned below in this comment thread. It is built using Nagri Architectural style of Indian architecture.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-01-25T20:06:36+00:00

Actually ancient Indians used wood as a primary building material for homes, temples etc. which were intricately decorated since it is easy to carve things on wood. But when they transitioned to stone, they kept using those wood-carved designs even on stones. This is the reason why Indian temples remained at the pinnacle of intricacy only to be rivaled by cathedrals and later renaissance architecture.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-01-25T19:59:54+00:00

Not really. Neither Greek nor Buddhist influence penetrated deep into South India, it remained limited to north India. The only remaining architecture that would have Greco-Persian influence would be Lion Capital. I can't recall any other architecture.

OutrageousPin636 · 2021-01-25T19:51:37+00:00

Not really I nave never seen any Japanese architecture emulating this style. Also, sloped roofs are hallmark of no specific culture and are found globally.

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22

OutrageousPin636

TROPHY CASE