The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[LurkerBaba]

While I don't apply the "they were outsiders" filter to Mughals. But in a sense they never totally blended in, like the Sakas, Hunas and Sythians (no I'm not highlighting religion). All these years of rule and the court language was still Persian and not an Indian language, their thought process was in Persian.

Maybe if Dara Shikoh had won, maybe things would have been different....

 

[Phenom]

many of the people still think that the mughal period in India or the period under muslim rule was the dark ages for India. its not the case.
hindus with their ability to mix got into the courts and army of mughals and bought India bounty from across the asia.

muslims are no settlers like british whose main aim was to take money outside India. these muslim rulers took tax and spent it or kept it within India. though their methods of operations were different. instead of subsidies they adopted money/food for work schemes. rampant construction in those eras are proof of it.

drop prejudice, bring in rationality

I don't want to get into the debate about the nationality of the Mughals, but the highlighted part is completely wrong. Mughals launched costly and often disastrous expeditions to central Asia that drained the mughal treasury, they replenished the same by imposing higher taxes on the local population. During Auragazeb's rule the empire was pretty much bankrupt thanks to his expeditions, its considered to be one of the reasons for the decline of the Mughal rule.

There is little evidence to suggest that any wealth was brought into India, the non-Indian areas ruled by the Mughals (like Afghanistan and parts of eastern Iran) didn't have any wealth to begin with. These regions are not rich enough to invade, but the mughals still wanted it under their control, often because central Asia was their ancestral land and they didn't want to lose control over them for symbolic reason.

 

[agentperry]

I don't want to get into the debate about the nationality of the Mughals, but the highlighted part is completely wrong. Mughals launched costly and often disastrous expeditions to central Asia that drained the mughal treasury, they replenished the same by imposing higher taxes on the local population. During Auragazeb's rule the empire was pretty much bankrupt thanks to his expeditions, its considered to be one of the reasons for the decline of the Mughal rule.

There is little evidence to suggest that any wealth was brought into India, the non-Indian areas ruled by the Mughals (like Afghanistan and parts of eastern Iran) didn't have any wealth to begin with. These regions are not rich enough to invade, but the mughals still wanted it under their control, often because central Asia was their ancestral land and they didn't want to lose control over them for symbolic reason.

afghanistan had wealth even when brits and czar forces raided it back. they had wealth. though many unfortunate things happened back then.
aurangzeb applied zajiya which is prescribed in sharia- a tax which non muslim needs to pay as a contribution for state security and force maintenance. at the same time zakkat was also strictly enforced the same thing for muslim population.
before that local population- non muslim were having extra privilege of not paying any contribution to state. the tax for pilgrims for hindus that time can be considered pay back for the rajputs tax on muslims travelling thru their land before the advent of mughals. muslims back then had a name in hindus-milch. means dirty.

what ever history might be. hindus had their way into muslim courts like tansen( who only converted on the eve of marrying akbars daughter) todarmal and many others.

 

[LurkerBaba]

afghanistan had wealth even when brits and czar forces raided it back. they had wealth. though many unfortunate things happened back then.

Nahh, Brits and Czars wanted Afghanistan for control over oil, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game . In fact Afghanistan was just a buffer state between the Brit and Russian Empires

aurangzeb applied zajiya which is prescribed in sharia- a tax which non muslim needs to pay as a contribution for state security and force maintenance. at the same time zakkat was also strictly enforced the same thing for muslim population.
before that local population- non muslim were having extra privilege of not paying any contribution to state.

Ahem Jiziya was just 'protection money', added to encourage conversion. Zakat was for the welfare of only one community.

 

[Adux]

afghanistan had wealth even when brits and czar forces raided it back. they had wealth. though many unfortunate things happened back then.
aurangzeb applied zajiya which is prescribed in sharia- a tax which non muslim needs to pay as a contribution for state security and force maintenance. at the same time zakkat was also strictly enforced the same thing for muslim population.
before that local population- non muslim were having extra privilege of not paying any contribution to state. the tax for pilgrims for hindus that time can be considered pay back for the rajputs tax on muslims travelling thru their land before the advent of mughals. muslims back then had a name in hindus-milch. means dirty.

what ever history might be. hindus had their way into muslim courts like tansen( who only converted on the eve of marrying akbars daughter) todarmal and many others.

You need to read about Zakat and Jaziya. It was in no way good to non-muslims. Like Lurker said , it is nothing but Protection money

 

[agentperry]

so thats what i meant by saying jijiya is a money used for maintaining the state army
the way is different and that is what making out a totally different meaning

 

[LurkerBaba]

so thats what i meant by saying jijiya is a money used for maintaining the state army
the way is different and that is what making out a totally different meaning

Protection money in the sense of protection of a community. Something like the 'hafta' a shopkeeper would give to the local gang leader

 

[Adux]

While I don't apply the "they were outsiders" filter to Mughals. But in a sense they never totally blended in, like the Sakas, Hunas and Sythians (no I'm not highlighting religion). All these years of rule and the court language was still Persian and not an Indian language, their thought process was in Persian.

Maybe if Dara Shikoh had won, maybe things would have been different....

I wonder how different is an outsider king to a local king, when the majority of people are treated by both of them just as worse. This is the fundamental reason why Indians never rose up together against Foreign occupation together like every other civilized systematic kingdoms/countries in the world.

 

[Adux]

so thats what i meant by saying jijiya is a money used for maintaining the state army
the way is different and that is what making out a totally different meaning

No, it is not that at all Perry, It is exactly like how lurker explained it.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Can anyone shut this fucking annoying thread.this is like discussing which pile of poo is gold.All monarchs in the Indian context are crap.The greatest individuals are those who give a golden future and more cards to play and they also must provide a golden platform and atmosphere for future leaders to grow.Only the "Mahatma" did that none else.Ambedkar and Patel also did that.Nehru also helped democracy to take root

India's golden age started from 1947 not some imaginary past

 

[LurkerBaba]

I wonder how different is an outsider to a local, when the majority of people are treated by both of them just as worse. This is the fundamental reason why Indians never rose up together against Foreign occupation together like every other civilized systematic kingdoms/countries in the world.

I would disagree. Most of the other civilized kingdoms either became one with the foreign occupation i.e lost their original traditions or assimilated that culture within themselves

 

[Yusuf]

Idiotji, if debated from the point of view of their individual accomplishments then it's a good topic. There was no India then, nation building as such didn't exist. It was all or himself. Each king wanted to expand his kingdom.

Let us not mix that with what they have done for the future of the country, something that didn't exist back then.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Idiotji, if debated from the point of view of their individual accomplishments then it's a good topic. There was no India then, nation building as such didn't exist. It was all or himself. Each king wanted to expand his kingdom.

Let us not mix that with what they have done for the future of the country, something that didn't exist back then.

Yusufji the mark of a leader is how much better he improved the situation for the future people .A king is a leader no??

 

[Yusuf]

No all kings had noble intentions. They wanted to rule. Keep their dynasties going. Some did by harsh tactics, some by being soft. At the end, the writ of. Single person ruled.

 

[warriorextreme]

for me none other than Chatrapati Shivaji maharaj...

and Maharana Pratap

[COLOR=#fafafa !important]

[/COLOR]​

 

[A chauhan]

Can anyone shut this fucking annoying thread...

Mate thread is not annoying but the discussion and justification based on the religion of those kings.

I think this is a very important point, as long as there was discrimination in the form of jaziya and the likes, how can they be called Great Kings? But then counter question is, the Hindu Kings discriminated on the basis of caste and justified it, so why not them?

IMO as Hindus were native people, they had the right to impose discriminatory restrictions, but on the other hand Mughals didn't.

However if we are talking about only Indian kings other than Mughals then we are forgetting Chhatrapati Shivaji who fought with Mughals and re-established Hindu rule and created a big Maratha Kingdom :-

Maratha Rule in 1795 in yellow color:-

Source-Wikipedia


Even my area was under Maratha rule that time...

 

[Yusuf]

Mate thread is not annoying but the discussion and justification based on the religion of those kings.




IMO as Hindus were native people, they had the right to impose discriminatory restrictions, but on the other hand Mughals didn't.

However if we are talking about only Indian kings other than Mughals then we are forgetting Chhatrapati Shivaji who fought with Mughals and re-established Hindu rule and created a big Maratha Kingdom :-

Maratha Rule in 1795 in yellow color:-

Source-Wikipedia


Even my area was under Maratha rule that time...

You have got to be kidding me!! Right to discriminate because they were native?
If an outsider does, it's understandable if not justifiable, but native is not.

 

[A chauhan]

You have got to be kidding me!! Right to discriminate because they were native?
If an outsider does, it's understandable if not justifiable, but native is not.

Hehe ! i mean encroachers have no/less rights when compared to the owner of the land, owners can impose restrictions while encroachers can't...

 

[Yusuf]

Hehe ! i mean encroachers have no/less rights when compared to the owner of the land, owners can impose restrictions while encroachers can't...

Saar, they didn't encroach, they owned the land by conquering it. There is a difference in that.

 

[Galaxy]

Mughals were not natives that's why they are not in the list.

What's difference between Native rulers and Mughals ?

Mughals killed Millions of Hindus, Converted into Islam forcefully, Destroyed 10,000 of religious temples, etc. started kingdom against our culture and based on religious discrimination.

What our King did ? All king wanted to expand their kingdom. Few did discrimination also but no one destroyed our temples and killed people just because they were from other religion.

What if There wasn't any Central Asia invasion ? Today, There won't be Pakistan or Bangladesh. 8)

Those Invaders destroyed our Culture/Tradition/religion from Kashmir to Sindhe. U.P. to Bangladesh. Kerala to Indonesia. Punjab to Kandhar.