The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[Galaxy]

Yes...so basically you accept them but don't accept Akbar, since Islam was imposed upon India ?

Actually I partially agree with you, Islam was indeed imposed, and Mughals still thought in Persian, and attempts at syncretism ultimately failed. (unlike the situation in....say Iran where even after conversion by the Arabs, they kept their language and culture).

But then you have to leave your arguments about race, and branding people as outsiders because of their original ethnicity

Those Sakas/Hunas didn't settled in India. They settled in Pakistan/A'than/Iran - It's been proved by historians. I will try to find some link which says the same. They came in NW, but they failed and didn't settled in Today's India as Hinduism was very strong at that time including Punjab. Sikh came from Hinduism that also very late. Sikhs Jatt clan came from Hindu Jats clan. There were many nomadic people in Pahstuns/Iran area. So, They settled there and followed Zoroastrian/Islam later. Like Shi'a Hazare following Islam. In India, they didn't settled whereas Uzbek settled India and Killed/converted 10's Millions of Indians and imposed their religion/culture forcefully.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Idiot,

Sirhindi was imprisoned only for one year and later released and was under royal patronage till death.







Imam Rabbani,Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi{ra} | Dargah Awlia

Sorry Satish Chandra does not state it neither most of the contemporary sources do not post links to blogs to be.Jahangir could not afford to piss the Rajput mansabdars in the first place

 

[Galaxy]

I have not posted anything which is wrong or not facts.


Few points


1) Hinduism never destroyed any religion/Culture (If that would be true, There won't be Budhism/Jainism/Islam/Zoroastrian/Judaism in India. Sikhism came after many centuries and different situation)
2) Hinduism never invaded any country (Except Cholas in Asean, But it was Kingdom and no expansion of religion/Culture. People were nomadic whereas we were Richest culture.
2) Mughals came for destruction of Bharat and expansion of Islam forcefully. Still, Hinduism managed to survive (because it was way of Life and few of our Kings were great enough to defend like Shivaji, Cholas, Rajputs)
4) Mongols/Nomadic didn't captured any Kingdom of ours for long time. They didn't changed anything. They came, saw and settled as per culture and didn't enforced anything. They settled in places with no religion like Baluchistan, Afghanistan.


I will stick with Akbar was not Indian and Anti-Hindu. Does that mean Anti-Indian ? Yes, in that period (as he was destroying Indian religion and Islam was not born here) but not any more. Today, Being Anti-Hinduism is considered as Secularism. :thumb: 8)

 

[Iamanidiot]

Can anyone articulate Hinduism and what it stands for properly

 

[Yusuf]

Yusuf,
you are applying wrong standards to them. Then, it was not based on simply birth place and no mother's nationality didnt matter then either.

Saar, India didn't even exist then. We talk in the sense of Indian subcontinent. Akbar's mom was Sindhi, he was born in Sindh. In that context just because his ancestry is Mongol, he can't be called a "non indian". He will off course remain a "Mongol" just like my nephew will be an "Indian".

 

[Adux]

1. Hinduism exsist today , does that mean Islam didnt try to destroy it?
Islam destroyed Hinduism, but Hinduism still exist, Hinduism destroyed Buddhism, yet it exist though notionally
2. Hindu's never invaded? Hindu's invaded other Buddhist Kingdoms in India, but then again since only Hinduism is true India, everything is Kosher.
3. Hindu's came to destroy Buddhism, and built their temples over Buddhist Monasteries. Hindu's subjected their people to casteism. Atleast if you converted to Islam, you would be treated equal.
4. Mongols/Nomads came and killed native people in Hundreds, and even they attained critical mass, they just assimilated. It is idiotic to think they just came and settled, and the people didnt do any resistance. Areas like Balochistan had other religions, the difference is they might not have been exactly Hinduism, but native to that area, but hey all that is Kosher, since it is not Hinduism

 

[Dovah]

This thread will cross 500 replies before sunrise, what a waste of bandwidth.
Btw, Maharaja Hari Singh was the greatest king.

 

[warriorextreme]

1. Islam destroyed Hinduism, but Hinduism still exist, Hinduism destroyed Buddhism, yet it exist though notionally
2. Hindu's never invaded? Hindu's invaded other Buddhist Kingdoms in India, but then again since only Hinduism is true India, everything is Kosher.
3. Hindu's came to destroy Buddhism, and built their temples over Buddhist Monasteries. Hindu's subjected their people to casteism. Atleast if you converted to Islam, you would be treated equal.
4. Mongols/Nomads came and killed native people in Hundreds, and even they attained critical mass, they just assimilated. It is idiotic to think they just came and settled, and the people didnt do any resistance. Areas like Balochistan had other religions, the difference is they might not have been exactly Hinduism, but native to that area, but hey all that is Kosher, since it is not Hinduism

vedics had to fight with budhists because budhists helped greeks like mininder to attack us just because he was ready to be converted to budhism...they even gave their monastries as hiding place for mininder's forces....this is the reason why pushyamitra sunga assasinated the king and declared himself as king....

 

[Yusuf]

Those Scythian (Sakas) entered India between 2500-1500 years ago. Those were nomadic people (not following any religion) and they entered in China, Korea, Iran and Today's India/Pak/A'than. Their motto was to rule the country and they didn't destroyed any culture, Tradition and religion.

Their Kingdom were very weak. They followed Zoroastrian in Iran, Hinduism/Budhism in India. They didn't started any new religion or culture. Still, They had least impact on Hinduism. People of Punjab were following Santan Dharm much before Indo-Scythian. In Short, People were following Hinduism much before Indo-Scythian and few people sakas settled in NW but they are more near Pak/Afgan/Iran. Pashtuns/Hazares are more close to those Mongols.

Why apply different standards to the Shakas? Just because they came 2500 years ago and didn't have any religion? So others who did come with a religion are not entitled to be called sons of the soil even if they are born here.

The times are such that one religion is demonized.

Whaaat to do

 

[Dovah]

vedics had to fight with budhists because budhists helped greeks like mininder to attack us just because he was ready to be converted to budhism...they even gave their monastries as hiding place for mininder's forces....this is the reason why pushyamitra sunga assasinated the king and declared himself as king....

You know this, how?

 

[Adux]

vedics had to fight with budhists because budhists helped greeks like mininder to attack us just because he was ready to be converted to budhism...they even gave their monastries as hiding place for mininder's forces....this is the reason why pushyamitra sunga assasinated the king and declared himself as king....

Ah, then it is ok that Hindu's did go genocidal maniac on Buddhist.

 

[S.A.T.A]

1. Hinduism exsist today , does that mean Islam didnt try to destroy it?
Islam destroyed Hinduism, but Hinduism still exist, Hinduism destroyed Buddhism, yet it exist though notionally
2. Hindu's never invaded? Hindu's invaded other Buddhist Kingdoms in India, but then again since only Hinduism is true India, everything is Kosher.
3. Hindu's came to destroy Buddhism, and built their temples over Buddhist Monasteries. Hindu's subjected their people to casteism. Atleast if you converted to Islam, you would be treated equal.
4. Mongols/Nomads came and killed native people in Hundreds, and even they attained critical mass, they just assimilated. It is idiotic to think they just came and settled, and the people didnt do any resistance. Areas like Balochistan had other religions, the difference is they might not have been exactly Hinduism, but native to that area, but hey all that is Kosher, since it is not Hinduism

What you imply is implicitly correct,History of a nation is narrated,juxtaposed and and ultimately perceived from the point of view of its dominant society which constitutes its nationhood.Hence Indian history is always told from the Hindu point of view.Otherwise a history as a neutral social narrative serves no purpose of the society,it will remain merely an academic pursuit.

 

[Yusuf]

the modus operandi of this thread


In response to this a


In total an embarassment of a thread to this forum disscussing an issue which is a
discussed by individuals with the mental maturity of a Inbred paki on crack

As much as G-K and oracle did trolling they never would g this low as they went in this thread.They are better humans.What the fuck happened to everyones education??

They were more mature individuals who had wisdom

The one sorely being missed on this thread is Zaid Hamid!!!

 

[thakur_ritesh]

discuss this sensibly.

anyone who has a problem, stay out of the thread.

thread opened

 

[Yusuf]

This thread will cross 500 replies before sunrise, what a waste of bandwidth.
Btw, Maharaja Hari Singh was the greatest king.

500 good quality posts here on will be highly appreciated without some skewed fundas and logic.

 

[Galaxy]

Buddhism was derived from Hindu lifestyle. So it was not necessary to follow separately Buddhism, for those who were Hindus. Hinduism is having history of more then 5000 years, and so it made deep impact on society of India. At the time of berth of Buddhism indian society was under hard shell of Hinduism. So it was difficult to change all Hindus in Buddhist. Although, Hindus have accepted Buddhism as a part of Hindu culture. Evidences for this statement is available in the caves of Ajantha and Ellora. Where the sculptures and paintings were made belonging to both cultures at same time.

Few other important point for decline of Buddhism.

1> Buddhists are non violant people and many of them (ancient times) were BRAHMCHARIES (didn't marry) and had no kids
2> Rise of Shankara /Vaishnavism
3>Invaders entering Afganisthan by destroying Buddhist Temples and Killing Buddhist people. (Central Asian invaders captured Buddhist dominated location)
4)>In Ancient times and still we dont differentiate too much in hinduism and buddhist because majority of things are common between them. Most of the people were followed Hinduism and didn't adopted Buddhism.

Hinduism didn't destroyed Buddhism, Indeed Hinduism helped Buddhism to expand in whole Asia from Khmer Empire to Japan. Gautam Buddha is considered as 9th Avataar of Vishnu. Buddhism flourished in India and beyond and reason for decline was as 100% population were deeply rooted towards Hinduism. There was no destruction against Buddhism in India.

 

[warriorextreme]

Ah, then it is ok that Hindu's did go genocidal maniac on Buddhist.

asoka ordered mass massacre of jainis when some jain paiter drew poster of budha bowing to mahavira...asoka offered golden coins for each jain head....we live in a messed up world dude...at least pushyamitra killed only the traitors.

 

[S.A.T.A]

The OP whether by intent or otherwise set a scope for the discussion, which given the vast range of Indian history was correct in narrowing down to a small topography.Everybody should try to stick to it.

 

[warriorextreme]

Buddhism was derived from Hindu lifestyle. So it was not necessary to follow separately Buddhism, for those who were Hindus. Hinduism is having history of more then 5000 years, and so it made deep impact on society of India. At the time of berth of Buddhism indian society was under hard shell of Hinduism. So it was difficult to change all Hindus in Buddhist. Although, Hindus have accepted Buddhism as a part of Hindu culture. Evidences for this statement is available in the caves of Ajantha and Ellora. Where the sculptures and paintings were made belonging to both cultures at same time.


Few other important point for decline of Buddhism.


1> Buddhists are non violant people and many of them (ancient times) were BRAHMCHARIES (didn't marry) and had no kids
2> Rise of Shankara /Vaishnavism
3>Invaders entering Afganisthan by destroying Buddhist Temples and Killing Buddhist people. (Central Asian invaders captured Buddhist dominated location)
4)>In Ancient times and still we dont differentiate too much in hinduism and buddhist because majority of things are common between them. Most of the people were followed Hinduism and didn't adopted Buddhism.


Hinduism didn't destroyed Buddhism, Indeed Hinduism helped Buddhism to expand in whole Asia from Khmer Empire to Japan. Gautam Buddha is considered as 9th Avataar of Vishnu. Buddhism flourished in India and beyond and reason for decline was as 100% population were deeply rooted towards Hinduism. There was no destruction against Buddhism in India.

Budha actually reformed the hinduism which was going away from vedic principles at that time....he also called himself brahman..
In the Itivuttaka (IV, i) the Buddha even declares that he is a Brahmin!

"Monks, I am a brahmin, one to ask a favor of, ever clean-handed, wearing my last body, incomparable physician and surgeon. Ye are my own true sons, born of my mouth, born of dhamma, created by dhamma, my spiritual heirs, not carnal heirs." v

 

[Galaxy]

Budha actually reformed the hinduism which was going away from vedic principles at that time....he also called himself brahman..
In the Itivuttaka (IV, i) the Buddha even declares that he is a Brahmin!

"Monks, I am a brahmin, one to ask a favor of, ever clean-handed, wearing my last body, incomparable physician and surgeon. Ye are my own true sons, born of my mouth, born of dhamma, created by dhamma, my spiritual heirs, not carnal heirs." v

Absolutely. Why people will follow Buddhism when Gautam buddha was telling true meaning of Hinduism in new way ?? From Script to Karams all were same. Buddhism expanded where there was no Hinduism. Like Afghanistan, Laos. In some part of India, people were following both as both were almost same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satavahanas

[ Satavahanas Dynasty were Worshipers of Buddha as well as other Hindu gods such as Krishna, Shiva, Gauri, Indra, Surya, and Chandra, later they sticked with Hinduism only as Buddhism saying the same and Buddhism declined due to rise of vaishnavism].