The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[WMD]

There were many great kings in Indian history. many more than here given in the poll.
so a comparison is not only unfair but also difficult.
one whose name has been neglected constantly is Kharavela.

Khārabēḷa (KhāravÄ“la, 193 BC – after 170 BCE) was the third and greatest emperor of the Mahameghavahana dynasty of Kaḷinga (present-day Odisha). The main source of information about Khārabeḷa is his famous seventeen line rock-cut Hātigumphā inscription in a cave in the Udayagiri hills near Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

During the reign of Khārabēḷa, the Chedi dynasty of Kaḷinga ascended to eminence and restored the lost power and glory of Kaḷinga, which had been subdued since the devastating war with Ashoka. Kaḷingan military might was reinstated by Khārabēḷa: under Khārabēḷa's generalship, the Kaḷinga state had a formidable maritime reach with trade routes linking it to the then-Simhala (Sri Lanka), Burma (Myanmar), Siam (Thailand), Vietnam, Kamboja (Cambodia), Borneo, Bali, Samudra (Sumatra) and Jabadwipa (Java). Khārabēḷa led many successful campaigns against the states of Magadha, Anga, Satavahanas till the southern most regions of Pandyan Empire (modern Tamil Nadu) and made Kaḷinga a gigantic empire. He is credited to have broken the Tamil confederacy in the south, uprooted the western powers and defeated Demetrius, the Indo-Greek king of Bactria. After his victory over Demetrius, the first Sunga emperor of Magadha Rajagriha, Pushyamitra Sunga accepted the suzerainty of Kharavela and became a vassal of Kalinga. Pushyamitra also returned the Jina statue of Mahaveera to Kalinga. Thereby Kharavela, avenged this psychological loss of the Jain statue, a symbol of Kalinga pride, at the hands of Ashoka Maurya.

Although religiously tolerant, Khārabēḷa patronised Jainism.
Kharavela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[[email protected]]

ALL monarchs in the Indian context none had a vision for the future.In that context gandhiji,patel and ambedkar were great individuals

This is what India we are in after the country was led by the two Individuals you mentioned. This clearly shows that the two gentlemen had no vision

 

[[email protected]]

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

Mr agentperry

mughal era was the darkest era in the whole human history. Because the mughals had only one goal to spread their religion islam and they massacred millions of Hindus for refusing to convert . They destroyed Indian temples, Educational Institutions, converted people forcefully or made them slaves. Even the the akhbar ordered his forces to massacre 30000 inhabitants after chittorgarh fort siege though it was not nessessary.

If anyone wants to know real history of mughals just google " biggest holocaust " . mughal rule of 800 years is the most brutal in the history of mankind.

 

[agentperry]

Mr agentperry

mughal era was the darkest era in the whole human history. Because the mughals had only one goal to spread their religion islam and they massacred millions of Hindus for refusing to convert . They destroyed Indian temples, Educational Institutions, converted people forcefully or made them slaves. Even the the akhbar ordered his forces to massacre 30000 inhabitants after chittorgarh fort siege though it was not nessessary.

If anyone wants to know real history of mughals just google " biggest holocaust " . mughal rule of 800 years is the most brutal in the history of mankind.

not the actual case. massacre after war is feature of human warfare. and calling mughal age darkest age is not right. rather calling the era before mughal and after gupta dark would be still appropriate.

moreover your answer might be tempered with the concept of india as wholly hindu land

 

[blank_quest]

Mr agentperry

mughal era was the darkest era in the whole human history. Because the mughals had only one goal to spread their religion islam and they massacred millions of Hindus for refusing to convert . They destroyed Indian temples, Educational Institutions, converted people forcefully or made them slaves. Even the the akhbar ordered his forces to massacre 30000 inhabitants after chittorgarh fort siege though it was not nessessary.

If anyone wants to know real history of mughals just google " biggest holocaust " . mughal rule of 800 years is the most brutal in the history of mankind.

Was that not what Ashoka did? Spread his religion ? Yes,but Ashoka never converted by killing/threatening anyone.. that is the Intrinsic Value of Buddhism.. for Islam may be it has the USP/Intrinsic value of doing Dawaah.. we can't really help them .. They must reform or perish like any religion ..

 

[Das ka das]

not the actual case. massacre after war is feature of human warfare. and calling mughal age darkest age is not right. rather calling the era before mughal and after gupta dark would be still appropriate.

moreover your answer might be tempered with the concept of india as wholly hindu land

With the exception of the semi-Aryan Cholas and Cheras, massacring the population was something kings/emperors following dharmic philosophy never did. This is attested by foreign accounts such as Megasthenes.

 

[agentperry]

With the exception of the semi-Aryan Cholas and Cheras, massacring the population was something kings/emperors following dharmic philosophy never did. This is attested by foreign accounts such as Megasthenes.

i doubt. even the great ashoka did it. looting and plundering is the last leg of war, even today.
so lets leave it. moreover from time to time conversions occured to the powerful or emerging religion all over the world- be it europe or asia or africa. also new religions take birth to offer resistance to suppressive forces.

India is a nation, dont confuse it with a land of one particular religion like israel or pakistan. if you actually want to dedicate it to one religion then which one, its birthplace to hinduism, jainism, sikhism buddhism and other religion which are not known much like tribal religions of chattisgarh etc. moreover judaism found home in india after losing out iran iraq to muslims.
so which one to be given authority.

many many kings converted to jainism and buddhism before muslims, entire central india was jain or buddhist at one time. so if conversion needs to be scrutinized then why these conversions are sidelined?

after centuries we shall revisit history with acceptance that what all had happened had happened, if it hurts the ego of one communnity then it shouldnt dent the integrity of the nation because nation is way bigger than one particular religious community

 

[Das ka das]

i doubt. even the great ashoka did it. looting and plundering is the last leg of war, even today.
so lets leave it. moreover from time to time conversions occured to the powerful or emerging religion all over the world- be it europe or asia or africa. also new religions take birth to offer resistance to suppressive forces.

India is a nation, dont confuse it with a land of one particular religion like israel or pakistan. if you actually want to dedicate it to one religion then which one, its birthplace to hinduism, jainism, sikhism buddhism and other religion which are not known much like tribal religions of chattisgarh etc. moreover judaism found home in india after losing out iran iraq to muslims.
so which one to be given authority.

many many kings converted to jainism and buddhism before muslims, entire central india was jain or buddhist at one time. so if conversion needs to be scrutinized then why these conversions are sidelined?

after centuries we shall revisit history with acceptance that what all had happened had happened, if it hurts the ego of one communnity then it shouldnt dent the integrity of the nation because nation is way bigger than one particular religious community

Uhh no, Asoka did not do any massacres of civilians, he was cruel to his own court and his cruelty is probably much exaggerated by Buddhist accounts. Jains and Buddhists converted via peaceful means, many Muslims also did the same such as in Kerala, coastal areas, Bengal. However its undeniable that Islam spread through much of north India by the sword. Sorry but the nation's history is way bigger than one particular religious community.

"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."--Will Durant

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Mr agentperry

mughal era was the darkest era in the whole human history. Because the mughals had only one goal to spread their religion islam and they massacred millions of Hindus for refusing to convert . They destroyed Indian temples, Educational Institutions, converted people forcefully or made them slaves. Even the the akhbar ordered his forces to massacre 30000 inhabitants after chittorgarh fort siege though it was not nessessary.

If anyone wants to know real history of mughals just google " biggest holocaust " . mughal rule of 800 years is the most brutal in the history of mankind.

Mughal rule did not exist for 800 years, barely three centuries. Mughals were (relatively) more secular (compared to other Islamic invaders). Akbar's reign is lost opportunity of de-Islamization of India - all because of Brahminism and rigid caste system.

 

[Das ka das]

Mughal rule did not exist for 800 years, barely three centuries. Mughals were (relatively) more secular (compared to other Islamic invaders). Akbar's reign is lost opportunity of de-Islamization of India - all because of Brahminism and rigid caste system.

Most people think Akbar's attempted secularization was unsuccessful because of his less enlightened descendants and the orthodox minded Ulema. You have found a convenient excuse by blaming all of India's problems on Brahmins. You will find plenty on this forum that echo your thoughts.

Welcome.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Most people think Akbar's attempted secularization was unsuccessful because of his less enlightened descendants and the orthodox minded Ulema. You have found a convenient excuse by blaming all of India's problems on Brahmins. You will find plenty on this forum that echo your thoughts.

I was blaming caste system and exclusionist Brahminical religion which (unlike other religions that invite people to convert), eagerly declares people outcastes at the drop of the hat, and would rather create obstacles even when some outsiders willingly want to mix with locals and adapt local culture.
I have no new information to add, I am talking about things already discussed or are common knowledge.

Nothing new about massacres by central Asian tribes, but Mughals were not exactly on religious crusades. Barbaric cultureless Mongols invaded and settled in many civilized lands. Whereever they went, over time they accepted local culure and local religion. India is probably the only exception.

Even in India, Akbar implemented so many policies of appeasement of locals. Not just secular policies, and marrying local princess, he practically gave up Islam. How much more explicit could the Indian born emperor be to indicate he desperately wants to be accepted by locals as one of their own? And if still Indians failed to absorb Mughals into local religion, whose fault is it?

Welcome.

Thank you

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

We Indians have really a shameful history. The only Indian history worth mentioning is atleast more than 1000 years back. Really tells you about the degree of decline India has gone through for thousands of years. We must create a new history, a more glorious one. Today, I feel ashamed talking about history as india has nothing worthy to mention at all, especially the part about british colonialism. Ashamed to be an Indian.

 

[Bhoja]

We Indians have really a shameful history. The only Indian history worth mentioning is atleast more than 1000 years back. Really tells you about the degree of decline India has gone through for thousands of years. We must create a new history, a more glorious one. Today, I feel ashamed talking about history as india has nothing worthy to mention at all, especially the part about british colonialism. Ashamed to be an Indian.

This is the most stupid post that I have read on this forum

 

[Shirman]

@TheLordOfTtheUnderworlds

Well Sir AKBAR didn't do nothing that spectacular...If he was so Spectacular than why did MARWAR'S Maharana Pratap waged a war against him. Mughals infact any north Indian Islamic empire's emperor and Begums were only interested in JAZIYAS of Infidels n LAND were the Infidels stayed ie:- HINDOOSTAN. If one were to see the Indian History right from early Islamic conquest of North n Central India till the time British gave India her Independence I for one could only see one pattern may be it being a central Asian UZbeki-AFGHANi-Turki Islamic conqurers. Or British, Protuguese, Dutch n French colonizers....At least colonizers had western education, modern thinking, socialist ideals, scientific reasoning, ethical modern values n post renaissance period achievements to shape the modern Indian society. What according to u r the qualities we Indians need to absorb from a Mughal emperor like Akbar...Ok Secularism is fine but forcefully to Annex the neighboring rajput hindu kingdoms on the basis of Din-e-Illhai, marrying a number of non-muslim princess for that variety of choices in Harem or constructing a Minars n Towers of Heads just like his grand father Babur n Great grand father Timur aren't the qualities we Indians need.....

 

[Dovah]

This is the most stupid post that I have read on this forum

Check out his other posts. You will reconsider.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Most people think Akbar's attempted secularization was unsuccessful because of his less enlightened descendants and the orthodox minded Ulema. You have found a convenient excuse by blaming all of India's problems on Brahmins. You will find plenty on this forum that echo your thoughts.

Welcome.

I'm not sure if this is 100% true, but its relevant.

A major event of Maharaja Ranbir Singh's reign which could have changed the whole course of history of Kashmir was the collective approach of Kashmir Muslims to him for being taken back into the Hindu fold. They pleaded that they had been focibly converted to Islam against their will and were longing to re-embrace their ancestral faith.

Ranbir Singh sought the guidance of Swamy Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, in the matter. Swami Dayand advised him that he could take them back in Hinduism after performing certain rites.

The proposed return of Kashmiri Muslims to their original faith was not to the liking of short sighted Kashmiri Pundits who were having a hey day since the return of Dogra Hindu rule. They tried to dissuade the Maharaja. When they found him adamant they took to a subterfuge. They filled some boats with stones and brought them midstream before Maharaja's palace on the Jhelum. They threatened him that they would commit suicide by drowning along with the sinking boats as a protest against his decision to take back Muslims into Hindu fold and that he would be then guilty of "Brahm Hatya" i.e. murder of Brahmins.

Ranbir Singh was a brave soldier. But he could not muster courage to face the crafty Brahmins, who were out to misinterpret the Vedic "dharma" for their selfish ends. The plan of return of Kashmiri Muslims to Hinduism thus fell through.

Later developments in Kashmir culminating in the en masse forced exodus of Kashmir pundits from the valley appears like the nemesis which has hit them for their un-Brahmin and myopic attitude at that crucial juncture of Kashmir's history.

Kashmir Information Network (KIN): A Paradise Turned into Hell

Something similar happened with Netaji Palkar

--

@civfanatic @Bhoja @Singh Do you know if this is true ?

 

[blank_quest]

@LurkerBaba whats the source ?? ( Don't show me dreams in day time )

 

[Shirman]

Nothing new about massacres by central Asian tribes, but Mughals were not exactly on religious crusades. Barbaric cultureless Mongols invaded and settled in many civilized lands. Whereever they went, over time they accepted local culure and local religion. India is probably the only exception.

If u ever read Baburinama He being a Honest Invader has clearly mentioned that he Hated INDIA as hell. He loved Uzbekistan too much but the reason he invaded India was for its wealth......The same reason Pre Islamic conquest happened Mahmud of Ghauri , Gaznavi Turki etc....Its always Wealth of India that creates that elusive Shine in the eyes of the conquer that sets his eyes for invading her.......

 

[civfanatic]

Are we sure that Akbar's Din-i-Ilahi was actually a "religion"? I'm starting to think this is a misconception caused by inaccurate translations of Mughal court records by European historians. It seems to have essentially been a secular version of the Sufi tariqa (orders). The members of Din-i-Ilahi were all high-ranking nobles and government officials, both Hindu and Muslim; they were considered students (murid), and Akbar was their master (pir). The purpose of this setup would have been to ensure the complete loyalty of the most important members of the Mughal court to the Emperor himself. The members of Din-i-Ilahi represented Akbar's inner circle, the people who he could trust the most on any occasion. Islamic hardliners like Ahmad Sirhindi disapproved of Din-i-Ilahi because they thought its members worshiped Akbar as a god, due to the practice (introduced by Akbar) of prostrating oneself completely in front of the Emperor. They thought one should prostrate himself only in front of God and no one else. Later, Shah Jahan discontinued both the Din-i-Ilahi order and the practice of complete prostration; this can be considered a marker in the growing Islamization of the Mughal Empire, which began during his reign.

However, there can be no doubt that Akbar was genuinely interested in religious affairs. But he was critical of both Islam and Hinduism, and I think he might have been leaning towards agnosticism later in his reign.

 

[civfanatic]

@civfanatic @Bhoja @Singh Do you know if this is true ?

Sounds like BS. What's the source?