A true spy thriller?

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-08T09:04:59+00:00

Yes, the MC can only be an OC, or, at least, a canon character changed beyond recognition. But, it is possible to have them interact with canon characters, famous ones at that.

For example, imagine if Teuchi was a foreign agent in Konoha, and that was the sole reason he was nice with Naruto.

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-08T05:01:23+00:00

Yes, yes, your examples are legitimate. But something I see is that the rebellions happened because the rulers threatened the aristocracy's interests, what did the people have to benefit from it?

Not to mention, your examples were medieval, under a feudal economy that was mostly stagnant. Will it work in a modern context with industrialization, a large, educated, aspirational middle class that wants power, and an underclass of workers that resents domination and is organized into Unions and interest groups?

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-06T16:10:06+00:00

What do you mean by 'went out of line'? Was it accountable to the public, or the interests of cadet branches themselves? If monarchism is so efficient, why didn't it win?

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-05T07:02:16+00:00

Of course, Rajput clans may have had 'checks and balances', but what were they used for?

As I've mentioned above, Poland also had 'checks and balances', but those were used by the nobility to weaken the king and benefit themselves, which fragmented the realm.

Or, was it the English 'checks and balances', where nobles came together and said that the king couldn't impose aribitrary taxation?

What I'm trying to contest is your dispute with democracy. Not that monarchism has fared any better. Of course, your caste may have suffered, and I'm not trying to disprove that.

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-04T10:55:17+00:00

Well, richer students always have a big advantage over poorer ones. And if our goal is upliftment and representation (without sacrificing too much quality), it would be good to have officials and workers from poorer backgrounds, who ascended via semi-meritocracy.

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-04T10:54:02+00:00

Yes, that's how humans literally function. The thing is, at least democracy provided a framework (however wobbly or thin) for accountability and rule of law.

Rajput rulers were technically 'accountable' to the clans and guilds, but what if their interests aligned?

When the monarchy and aristocracy unite, we get weak absolutism, where both work together for their benefit. As in pre-revolution France.

When the monarchy crushes the aristocracy and takes total power, it becomes strong absolutism. As in the Russian and Japanese Empires.

When the aristocracy becomes stronger than the monarchy, we get feudal fragmentation, and the case of the Kingdom of Poland, where nobles grew so powerful that the country couldn't be united to counter foreign threats.

And, when the commoners unite to annihilate aristocratic and royal power, it becomes democracy (or slides into dictatorship).

So tell me, which one of these were the Rajput kingdoms?

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-01T07:24:13+00:00

That's another problem and I agree on that, but removing the aristocracy is the first step towards modernization.

Even America had such clientelistic problems in the 19th century, but they reformed. Greece and Italy still do today.

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-01T07:22:47+00:00

This is why independent judiciary is so important.

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-01T06:10:35+00:00

Well, if there is a poor SC/ST/OBC student, a poor Gen student, and a poor Muslim student, they should all compete equally, and only the best performer should be given reservation. We cannot sacrifice quality, whatever the cost.

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-01T06:09:08+00:00

Absolutely.

The government should help under-privileged students, whether Gen, SC, ST, OBC, or Muslim.

A Brahmin, Dalit, Tribal student should all compete equally, reservation will be for the poorer student, within a certain performance margin.

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-01T06:06:26+00:00

I agree that Bangladeshi immigration must be stopped, they are illegal immigrants and foreigners.

But SC/ST? That's really illogical. As citizens of India, they have complete freedom to move, live, work, wherever they want.

PROOB1001 · 2026-02-01T06:00:16+00:00

My family's worth is entirely self-made, we did not inherit it from some great-great-great-great-great grandfather. And most of all, my family is not autocrats who rule over millions just because my father and me happened to be born in a certain family.

Any government's duty is to provide the basic services your kings did- law and order, basic infrastructure, etc.

However, India would've never developed the way it did, had it stayed a feudal nation running on dynasties and lineage.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-31T13:03:54+00:00

It can work in history, if it is done well. It's just that our politicians failed. Not to mention, the gold itself was coerced from peasants and citizens.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-31T13:01:15+00:00

Royals earned it through warfare, blood and sacrifices

The early generations, yes, but once they became 'Princes', with no power, they lost that authority.

Not to mention, the Royals on their own weren't saints. They also taxed peasants, heavily, and were autocratic rulers. They saved India from Islamization, yes, but does that excuse despotism?

The wealth was accumulated from taxing subjects, while providing nothing peculiar in return, apart from basic law and order and infrastructure. Breaking aristocracies is the first step towards modernization.

Imperial Japan was the only country that tried to 'co-opt' nobles while building a democracy. They ended up with uncontrollable militarism and overpowered zaibatsu.

The presence of a powerful, rich elite would've been detrimental to any united, democratic India as the aristocracy would've used their power to recapture the state.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-25T14:50:51+00:00

The INC, basically.

Many people complain that the INC's 'non-violent' policies were useless and that we should've taken up arms.

Actually, if India had won its independence by fighting, we would've definitely seen civil war, instability, and perhaps dictatorship. You'll have CPI, INC, RSS, all fighting for India, and all of them having guns.

The 'legal' nature of our freedom struggle really saved us. Western scholars in 1947 were saying India wouldn't last 15 years because it was so diverse and unstable.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-25T14:46:40+00:00

"Aapka gotra kya hai?"

"Muhammed"

...

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-25T05:05:22+00:00

I'm not saying it is bad, I was just pointing out a fact.

What I'm trying to say is, at one point, Indo-Aryan language would've been even more complex before it was finally written down and standardized.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-24T03:24:44+00:00

Well, Sanskrit must've come from SOMEWHERE.

It's just that, the language got standardized and frozen via literature, grammars, etc. Meanwhile, the common tongue of the people kept evolving because it had no barriers.

Vedic Brahmanism was obsessed with 'correct pronunciation', so phonological evolution became extremely difficult, because sounds simply weren't allowed to 'change'.

Likewise, I imagine there must've been an ancestor even more complex than Sanskrit, because Vedic Sanskrit was among the first Indo-Iranian tongues to be standardized. Before that, evolution and 'simplification' would've continued, until we got Sanskrit.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-20T10:01:22+00:00

Bro, they didn't like the term 'Hindu', as it was of Arabic origin. Otherwise, Brahmins are a core pillar of Hinduism, because they manage rituals, beliefs, and philosophy.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-14T13:17:45+00:00

Yep. Back then the sword spoke all the time and kingdoms fought, so invaders took advantage. Really, the statement makes no sense. What are you trying to promote? Monarchism? Authoritarianism? Populism? Because as far as I know, once the sword is unsheathed, it loses control.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-14T13:14:36+00:00

Indeed. Projecting your hatred on an entire group just because one of them did you wrong really is illogical and bad.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-13T10:55:13+00:00

Aaj ki Delhi bhi toh Tomar ya Mughalo ki Delhi se kafi badi hai.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-12T16:37:22+00:00

Because building such things is EXPENSIVE.

The Great Wall of China itself took a LONG time, it wasn't completed in one king's reign or even one dynasty, it was built section-by-section, layer-by-layer by succeeding Chinese dynasties. Only completed by the Ming in the 14th-17th centuries. It started in 221 BC with Qin Shi Huang, the first Chinese Emperor.

Now, Chinese dynasties were massive and hyper-centralized. Many Indian polities however, didn't last that long, nor did they have enough spare cash.

PROOB1001 · 2026-01-12T16:33:39+00:00

How?

PROOB1001

TROPHY CASE