The Greatest Kings in Indian History

Who is the Greatest King in Indian History?

  • Chandragupta Maurya

    Votes: 115 33.7%
  • Ashoka

    Votes: 45 13.2%
  • Raja Chola

    Votes: 34 10.0%
  • Akbar

    Votes: 16 4.7%
  • Sri Krishna Devaraya

    Votes: 18 5.3%
  • Chatrapati Shivaji

    Votes: 58 17.0%
  • Tipu Sultan

    Votes: 9 2.6%
  • Ranjith Singh

    Votes: 10 2.9%
  • Samudra Gupta

    Votes: 11 3.2%
  • Chandragupta Vikramaditya

    Votes: 20 5.9%
  • Harsha

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Kanishka

    Votes: 4 1.2%

  • Total voters
    341

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
It became on topic the moment you excluded Islamic Kings on the basis of violence. If that is the case, then we have an opinion on the Indian Kings. How are they relevant, people in glass houses, shouldnt throw stones. This is not Islamic or Foreign persecution, but rather who is the best king of India, now for the people of India, how does it matter, who persecutes them higher caste hindu rulers or Islamic rulers, same shyt different guy. Is it not a fact that Indians are far more racist than US ? So why should US listen to our cry's when we do the same or worse to people here, heck one might even say we have institutionalized it. Why should Islamic King's take a back seat because they did violence on Indians, all the while Indians have done even worse for longer periods of time's on Indians themselves.
Not just violence. I quoted the contemporaries to show that the Mughals were not considered Indians. Not by them, not by their side-kicks, not by thieir subjects. Thats the first part.

The second point is that even if we concede that they are Indian, they cannot be great kings for their deeds. And here the violence part is important. But that is not the only thing. Their administration was also pathetic. They lived luxuriously while taxing the poor subjects.

In conclusion, they are not Indian. And even if they are Indian, they are not great.

Now, how is caste relevant in this topic?
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
The point being made is that they are irrelevent and seperate topics. Caste system in India(in all religions) can be discussed freely. But to use it as a shield or to use it to justify foreign persecution of Hindus(indians) seems pathetic and inhuman.
Nobody is justifying violence.

'Foreign' term exists today due to geographical boundaries are drawn & are internationally observed. That wasn't the case long time back.

There are many cases when internal kingdoms fought each other & killed other's innocent population. What is the excuse then?

World is inhuman & pathetic when it comes about treating weak. Strong ones will always crush the weak.


There is a saying in marathi,

Bali to kaan pili : Meaning same, One who is Powerful will always smash the weaker one.


--

@Yusuf

Your patience is commendable!
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Kanishka, the famous king of the Kushana dynasty, was born of mixed descendancy. But he became an Indian because of his long acquaintance with the people and culture of the land. Kanishka transformed into a devoted Buddhist during the course of his reign. The coins of Kanishka pointed to the gradual alteration of his religious beliefs initiated with pantheism and culminating in adoption of Buddhism. There are various legends depicting the story of Kanishka`s conversion. Historians therefore depend on the legends to determine the religious policy of Kanishka. According to such a legend, the influence of the great scholar Asvaghosa led to the conversion of Kanishka. After occupying Pataliputra, Kanishka came in contact with Asvaghosa. Kanishka was very much impressed with the teachings of Asvaghosa. Asvaghosa accompanied him to Peshawar and introduced him to the Buddhist creed. Though a dedicated Buddhist himself, Kanishka was not a bigot. He was equally tolerant towards the other religious creeds, which are evident from the figures of various Hindu, Persian and Greek deities, found on his coins. Some scholars however suggests that these figures are not conclusive proofs of the religious toleration of Kanishka, rather the coins can be considered merely a token, which indicates the diversity of religious beliefs and ideas within his Empire.

The reign of Kanishka left a memorable mark in the history of ancient India, particularly for his patronage to the religion of Sakyamuni. Ashoka devoted his life for the spread of the Hinyana creed while Kanishka devoted himself to the service of the Mahayana creed. Different scholars have approached different theories regarding the actual date of Kanishka`s conversion into Buddhism. Some scholars are of the view that Kanishka embraced Buddhism during the first era of his reign. Sten Konow had come to this conclusion after reading a date in the Peshawar casket information. According to Konow the date denotes the first year of Kanishka`s reign. But B.N Mukherjee has suggested that the Peshawar casket information did not bear any date. However it is generally believed that Kanishka embraced Buddhism after his invasion of Pataliputra, where he came under the influence of the Buddhist scholar Asvaghosa.

During Kanishka, the famous Fourth Buddhist council was convoked at Kundalavana Vihara. Though there are enough controversies among the scholars about the actual location of Kundalavana Vihara, it is generally believed that Kundalavana Vihara was located in Kashmir. A selected body of scholars participated in the council. The fourth Buddhist council was organised under the patronage of Kanishka, which was headed by scholars like Vasumitra and Asvaghosa.
The Convocation of the first Buddhist council marked the ascendancy of the Mahayana Buddhism with Sanskrit as its vehicle of propagation. Kanishka regarded Mahayana as his state religion. The state religion of Kanishka determined preaching the divinity of Gautama Buddha and the worship of Buddha`s image had a greater appeal compared to the dry, scholastic Hinyana creed. Mahayanism, the state religion of Kanishka preached not only the divinity of Buddha and the worship of the Buddha image, but it also preached the efficacy of prayer, devotion and faith. Salvation of entire universe was the ideal of Mahayanism. Moreover the medium of propagation of Buddhism was Sanskrit, which had some social significance. Kanishka undertook this step because at that time Sanskrit was considered an aristocratic language, which was ornamental and literary than the spoken language Pali. Therefore with the use of Sanskrit as the medium of propagation, Kanishka intended to alienate Buddhism from the common masses. Kanishka in his religious policy of Mahayanism discarded the doctrine of personal salvation by penance and ethical practices in order to be "self illuminated". The religious policy of Kanishka stated that Bodhisatva would work for the salvation of all beings. Hence during the reign of Kanishka, people did not need to undergo hardship and penance in order to attain salvation. Kanishka replaced the worship of Buddhist Symbols like Buddha`s footprints, Dharmachakra, stupa or Bodhi Tree by initiating the worship of Buddha and Bodhisattva images.

The cult of Bodhisattva and the worship of Buddha images became widely prevalent in the Kushana period. One of the earliest figures of Buddha are found in Kanishka`s coins and in the Peshawar casket. The term `Bodhisattva` had a dual significance as was upheld by the religious policy initiated by Kanishka. In one sense it meant a person worked for the salvation of the mankind. In the second sense it meant the previous incarnation of Buddha. Kanishka also undertook the policy of propagating his religion to the distant countries including Tibet, China, Burma and Japan. Historians have later presumed that since Kanishka had commanded over the major parts of Central Asia, his own creed of Mahayanism was spread to those countries. From the accounts of Hiuen Tsang and Al Beruni, it is known that Kanishka constructed the great relic tower at Peshawar, which was famous throughout the Buddhist world. The Greek architect Agelisas or Agisala constructed the tower. Mahayana Buddhism, as the state religion of the Kushanas received a great impetus.

Kanishka`s reign prefigured the Indian Renaissance, which had its full development in the Gupta Age. Historians have opined that the Kushana age was the introduction to the Gupta Civilisation. Sanskrit was restored with a former glory after it had disappeared in obscurity after the Mauryas. Kanishka gave his royal patronage to the language. All the Mahayana scriptures were written in Sanskrit language. Galaxies of great scholars like Asvaghosa (the Buddhist Writer), Nagarjuna (the philosopher), Samgharaksha (the chaplain), mathara (the politician), Vasumitra (the Buddhist scholar), Charaka (the physician) and Agisala (the engineer) adorned the court of Kanishka. Asvaghosa was not only a great philosopher but also a great poet and author of the famous epic `Buddha Charita`. Asvaghosa also wrote "Sundarananda Kavya", which deals with the episodes of Buddha`s life. Asvaghosa at the same time wrote several philosophical treatises, which were of immense importance. "Sutralankara" was another important work composed by a scholar named Kumaralata in Taxila. Matricheta was another contemporary, who composed Buddhist hymns or Stotras, which were very popular in Central Asia and Tibet. Nagarjuna was a competent exponent of Mahayana philosophy. Learning and literature were augmented due to the patronage of the Kushana king Kanishka.
Kanishka`s reign was a landmark in the realm of art and architecture. Four eminent schools of art received great impetus during his reign. These were Sarnath, Mathura, Amaravati and Gandhara. Among the four schools, the Gandhara School of Art received a thriving prosperity during the reign of Kanishka. In art, Kanishka`s reign was marked with the growth of two distinct styles, one Indian and another exotic. The Indian style was represented by the headless statue of Kanishka at Mathura and the image of Buddha found at Sarnath. The exotic school known as Gandhara art was Graoko-Roman art applied to the Buddhist subjects found in Gandhara Region. In the field of architecture too Kanishka`s reign was highly creative. Numerous stupas, monuments, columns were built during his sovereignty.

In short, during the rule of Kanishka, India reached culmination in the fields of art, architecture, learning and literature
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Nobody is justifying violence.

'Foreign' term exists today due to geographical boundaries are drawn & are internationally observed. That wasn't the case long time back.

There are many cases when internal kingdoms fought each other & killed other's innocent population. What is the excuse then?

World is inhuman & pathetic when it comes about treating weak. Strong ones will always crush the weak.


There is a saying in marathi,

Bali to kaan pili : Meaning same, One who is Powerful will always smash the weaker one.
It sound uncannily similar to what British might have preached before independence. Anyway, my only objection is that let not caste system be used to silence the Hindus when they talk of other issues. Otherwise, I have no problem if caste system is sought to be discussed.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
It sound uncannily similar to what British might have preached before independence.
So what? They ruled & kept natives under their foot for bloody 150+years with their power. That is the truth at the end of the day.

Anyway, my only objection is that let not caste system be used to silence the Hindus when they talk of other issues. Otherwise, I have no problem if caste system is sought to be discussed.
Well caste system is valid excuse. If you say so-called outsiders institutionalized violence, then other instances of violence should also be considered.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
THE SHAHIYA STRUGGLE WITH MAHMUD
Mahmud led his first invasion against the Shahiyas of Udbhandapur in AD 1001 when he advanced upon Peshawar. Raja Jayapala was caught unawares, and could not mobilise all his forces in time. The lack of a standing army was to prove the undoing of many Hindu princes in days to come. In contrast, the Muslim militarists always maintained their armed hordes in a permanent state of mobilisation. Even so, the Hindus fought an obstinate battle in the face of overwhelming odds. They, however, depended upon slow moving elephants which proved a poor match for the highly mobile Muslim cavalry. They were defeated and Jayapala himself was made captive. But Mahmud did not dare annex any Indian territory. He released Jayapala in exchange for fifty elephants. He had had a taste of Hindu heroism, and beat a hasty retreat. On the other hand, Jayapala thought himself unworthy of the throne he occupied, and burnt himself on a funeral pyre to which he set fire with his own hands. This was a demonstration of the Hindu sense of honour, which no defeated Muslim marauder could ever match.

Jayapala's successor, Anandapala, proved equally valiant. He refused passage to Mahmud's armies on their way to Multan in AD 1005-06. This led to a battle which Anandapala lost. His son, Sukhapala, was taken prisoner and converted to Islam. Mahmud had to rush back to Ghazni to meet an attack from the west. He left his Indian possessions in the hands of Sukhapala who, however, soon returned to the Hindu fold. Here was an opportunity for Anandapala to attack the Sultan from the east. But Anandapala proved too magnanimous to take advantage of the difficulty in which his adversary was placed. Instead, he offered to go to the aid of Mahmud with a sizable force. "Anandapala thus lost the only chance of crushing an enemy and was soon to pay the penalty."2

Mahmud invaded India again in AD 1008. According to Firishta, quoted by Dr. Misra, Anandapala "sent ambassadors on all sides inviting assistance of other princes of Hindustan, who now considered the expulsion of Mohammadans from India as a sacred duty. Accordingly the Rajas of Ujjain, Gwalior, Kalinjar, Kanauj, Delhi and Ajmer entered into a confederacy and collecting their forces advanced towards Punjab"¦ The Indians and Mohammedans"¦ remained encamped [at Waihind] for forty days without coming into action"¦ The Hindu women, on this occasion, sold their jewels and melted down their gold ornaments to furnish resources for the war." Mahmud "ordered six thousand archers to the front to endeavour to provoke the enemy to attack his entrenchments". The Khokhars "penetrated into Mohammadan lines where a dreadful carnage ensued and 5000 Mohammadans in a few minutes were slain". Utbi admits that "the battle lasted from morning till evening and the infidels were near gaining victory".3 Firishta reports that Mahmud "saw his plight and sent some of his elite warriors to attack the elephant on which Anandapala was sitting and directing the contest". The elephant took fright from "the naptha balls and flights of arrows and turned and fled".4 That broke the morale of the Hindu army. It was neither the first nor the last occasion on which the Hindu army became an uncontrollable rabble and suffered defeat and slaughter simply because the elephant carrying its commander turned tail. The Muslim armies were more disciplined.

The Shahiya dynasty now established a new capital at Nandana in the Salt Range. They contested every inch against subsequent raids of Mahmud. The next battle took place in AD 1013. Trilochanapala who had meanwhile succeeded Anandapala, retired into the hills of Kashmir where the Prime Minister of that kingdom came to his help with a large army. KalhaNa has described this battle in glowing terms in his RãjatarañgiNî. Utbi writes that "the action lasted for several days without intermission", and that the Hindus lost it only when they "were drawn into the plain to fight, like oil sucked up into the wick of the candle". Kalhana concludes: "Even after he had obtained his victory, the Hammira did not breathe freely, thinking of the superhuman prowess of the illustrious Trilochanapala."5

The Shahiya king with his son, Bhimapala (known as Nidar Bhima), now established a new seat at Lohara (Lohkot) on the border of Kashmir. Mahmud tried to storm it in AD 1015. Firishta tells us that "this was the first disaster that the Sultan suffered in his campaigns against India. After some days he extricated himself with great difficulty from his peril, and reached Ghazni without having achieved any success."6 For obvious reasons, comments Dr. Misra, the contemporary Muslim historians do not mention this particular expedition.

The Shahiyas were no longer in a position to arrest the forward march of Mahmud. Nor was Mahmud in a position to dislodge them from Lohara so long as a single scion of the dynasty remained alive. "Trilochanapala was killed in A.D. 1021, and his son Bhimapala five years later (A.D. 1026)", fighting Mahmud all along at different places and in league with different Hindu princes. Years later, Alberuni wrote: "The Hindu Shahiya dynasty is now extinct, and of the whole house there is no longer the slightest remnant in existence. We must say that, in all their grandeur, they never slackened in the ardent desire of doing that which is good and right, that they were men of noble sentiment and noble bearing." Dr. Misra observes: "The Shahis fought with valour and tenacity for nearly fifty years. They ultimately collapsed against the repeated onslaughts of the Turks, led by one of the greatest generals their race has produced but not before three generations of the Shahi kings had sacrificed themselves on the battlefield."7
The highlighted part clearly show that Hindus(indians) considered muslims as foreigners and fought vigorously to resist their invasion.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
Not just violence. I quoted the contemporaries to show that the Mughals were not considered Indians. Not by them, not by their side-kicks, not by thieir subjects. Thats the first part.
So who are not Indians? Earlier Mughals, or the later one's like Akbar? Who does have Indian DNA in them, if that was also criteria

The second point is that even if we concede that they are Indian, they cannot be great kings for their deeds. And here the violence part is important. But that is not the only thing. Their administration was also pathetic. They lived luxuriously while taxing the poor subjects.
I could agree with above, as long as it is applicable in the same standard to other King's as well. The subjugation and violence metted out to Lower caste Hindu's are a reality.

In conclusion, they are not Indian. And even if they are Indian, they are not great
.

Now, how is caste relevant in this topic?
The moment somebody brought in religion, and a particular religion's persecution of Hindu's. The whole premise is, Islam is not Indian, therefore Islamic King's arent Indian. I could agree Tipu Sultan was a bad king and honestly even a blood thirsty religious nut bag, but what we cant deny is that, he is an Indian. Like it or not. The only reason we honor Tipu, is for the fact, that he fought against the British, all the while GoI over looking the fact that he killed many of his own countrymen, mostly non-muslims. The same yardstick can be applied to many Hindu King's. Here the non-muslims become Lower caste Hindu, rest of it remains the same.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
Iam actually stuck by the classification of Hindu ,Buddhist or Jain kings.Is this classification not similar to shaiva or Vaishnava kings or those who submitted themselves to the Shakta school.Take for instance the example i cited for Asoka and Chadragupta Mauriya.since Mauriya s spent the better part of his political career as a Hindu and only turned to the Thirthankaras at the fa end of his left,would we call Mauriya a Hindu king or Jaina king.Would we call Asoka a Hindu king or Buddhist king.The great Hoysala chieftain(who was a vassal to the Chalukya for namesake)was Jaina but became a Vaishnava under the tutelage of Ramanujacharya,the great expounder of Vishitadvaita,and caused the construction of the famous Belur and Halebidu temple complex.was he a Jain or Hndu(or Vauishnava to be precise)

The ease at which rulers from the same dynasties could be Hindu, jain or Buddhist alternatively and the fact that they could be so and still not have any aspersion cast on their right to succeed or rule or pass on the baton to a successor,who may not adhere to the school of philosophy his predecessor adhered to,tells s that such distinctions where superficial and had no significant impact on the political character of their reign.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
So what? They ruled & kept natives under their foot for bloody 150+years with their power. That is the truth at the end of the day.



Well caste system is valid excuse. If you say so-called outsiders institutionalized violence, then other instances of violence should also be considered.
Yep, you had to justify the british as well. Thats how one can justify the islamic invasion also.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
THE SHAHIYA STRUGGLE WITH MAHMUD


The highlighted part clearly show that Hindus(indians) considered muslims as foreigners and fought vigorously to resist their invasion.
Ofcourse Yes, at that point of time, they were foriegners, not later. Few centuries down, they were already Indians in many ways. It is easier to get the Indian Citizenship, I dont think Barak Obama has faced as much as scrutiny or higher yardstick than Akbar and other muslims here.

PS: The tone of the article is very very interesting, shows a certain bias.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
The ease at which rulers from the same dynasties could be Hindu, jain or Buddhist alternatively and the fact that they could be so and still not have any aspersion cast on their right to succeed or rule or pass on the baton to a successor,who may not adhere to the school of philosophy his predecessor adhered to,tells s that such distinctions where superficial and had no significant impact on the political character of their reign.
There is a difference between Hindu's rulers before the institutionalization of Caste System and later. It reflected on their political reign and their vision.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
It sound uncannily similar to what British might have preached before independence. Anyway, my only objection is that let not caste system be used to silence the Hindus when they talk of other issues. Otherwise, I have no problem if caste system is sought to be discussed.
@Johnee
Some section of the Hindus society is still undecided whether they want to preserve their society and way of life and that that this society must always be a position of dominance in this motherland of ours.They re more concerned about principles,about proving their point,even if it has come at the cost self flagellation.You cannot convince any of them or all of them.We can only pray they will not hinder in our duty as members of the Hindu society.The only question is as a Hindu what will you do to preserve our way of life,our traditions,our temples,our way of worship,our philosophies,our places of reverence,our language,our laws.You will do what is necessary because it your inner yearning to do so,not because some one clever convinced you to do so.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
The second point is that even if we concede that they are Indian, they cannot be great kings for their deeds. And here the violence part is important. But that is not the only thing. Their administration was also pathetic. They lived luxuriously while taxing the poor subjects.
This is the only point that i have been trying to make. You may not call them great kings, they may be evil or any other adjective, but the thing was, they were very much part of the sub continent. To state otherwise is trying to distort history and being in denial.

Baaki sub theek hai :D.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
@Johnee
Some section of the Hindus society is still undecided whether they want to preserve their society and way of life and that that this society must always be a position of dominance in this motherland of ours.They re more concerned about principles,about proving their point,even if it has come at the cost self flagellation.You cannot convince any of them or all of them.We can only pray they will not hinder in our duty as members of the Hindu society.The only question is as a Hindu what will you do to preserve our way of life,our traditions,our temples,our way of worship,our philosophies,our places of reverence,our language,our laws.You will do what is necessary because it your inner yearning to do so,not because some one clever convinced you to do so.
The Hindu Society should come in terms with its own past history. Self-Flagellation is a very light term, even insulting ; when the point is being made about a large majority of Indians, subjugated, raped, looted, genocided, their future taken away from them all in the name of hinduism and its laws. So, Yes. I do have a problem with that, and Yes, I will stand on the way of glorifying that tradition or reviving it. Take Caste away from Hinduism, I dont think anybody has a problem. Like I said before, Hindu's have drunk the cool aid of them being some helpless do gooder lambs who havent done anything wrong ever for such a long time, especially when the History has been written by Hindu higher caste, now when the lower caste is getting educated and is asking tough questions, they find them extremely difficult to answer, Unlike Islamic maruaders, who is like Yes, we killed Hindu's, pagans and other religions for the greater cause of Islam, the Higher caste who want to don the dress of the 'good boy' doesnt have the cajones to say the same about their past atrocities. So their idea is to just speak about Christianity and Islam, and keep everything to that. Well Tough luck.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
There is a difference between Hindu's rulers before the institutionalization of Caste System and later. It reflected on their political reign and their vision.
Caste system is irrelevant here,because the examples of kings advocating a certian philosophy,which neither their predecessor subscribed to nor their successor would advocate,evidently happens at different chronologies of the indian historical time scale.the example of the Mauriya and the Hoysala dynasty which i cited happened over a gap of more than thousand years.The fact is such conversion had no significant impact on the principle of kingship,where legitimacy is extremely important for political stability.The near peaceful transition from Hindu-Jain/Buddhist-Hindu indicates such distinction are really superficial and academic and had no doctrinal vale(culturally or politically)
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
Since we are talking about excuses, I wonder if its other way round.

Natives were not able to defend their motherland so they eventually lost it to the attackers. Now they blame it on religion or on the cruelty of attackers. Filthy attempt to revive lost pride & discredit winners calling them invaders, non-Indians.

Whom do you blame first for Chinese infiltration? Chinese or GOI?

Food for thought.
 
Last edited:

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
The Hindu Society should come in terms with its own past history. Self-Flagellation is a very light term, even insulting ; when the point is being made about a large majority of Indians, subjugated, raped, looted, genocided, their future taken away from them all in the name of hinduism and its laws. So, Yes. I do have a problem with that, and Yes, I will stand on the way of glorifying that tradition or reviving it. Take Caste away from Hinduism, I dont think anybody has a problem. Like I said before, Hindu's have drunk the cool aid of them being some helpless do gooder lambs who havent done anything wrong ever for such a long time, especially when the History has been written by Hindu higher caste, now when the lower caste is getting educated and is asking tough questions, they find them extremely difficult to answer, Unlike Islamic maruaders, who is like Yes, we killed Hindu's, pagans and other religions for the greater cause of Islam, the Higher caste who want to don the dress of the 'good boy' doesnt have the cajones to say the same about their past atrocities. So their idea is to just speak about Christianity and Islam, and keep everything to that. Well Tough luck.
Let us leave the matter of Hindu reconciliation unto the Hindus,perhaps the social prohibition against untouchabilty now gaining strength in the Hindu society is mark of such a reconciliation.But for those who want to eliminate the Hindu tradition,what difference does it make what and how Hindus practice their tradition,they out to obliterate it completely without leaving trace.Hindus must be concerned about those out to destroy them and how we can take counter meausre against them and when we do,what we do,only that should concern those others.

P.S: Did it matter to those Muslims of Gujarat or Christians in Odisha,who died in riots whether the Hindu who killed him practiced untouchabilty or if he was a low cast who had been or had not been reconciled
 
Last edited:

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
OP started The topic about greatest Buddhist, Hindu and Jain kings in Indian history. But it covered 50,000 years old Africa, Cast System and what not ?

There are few section who are hell bent to include Akbar as great king and many who consider him as evil. I also consider him evil. This is never ending story. :rolleyes:
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
OP started The topic about greatest Buddhist, Hindu and Jain kings in Indian history. But it covered 50,000 years old Africa, Cast System and what not ?

There are few section who are hell bent to include Akbar as great king and many who consider him as evil. I also consider him evil. This is never ending story. :rolleyes:
Actually people debated about him being "Indian" or not more than him being great. You know what when you use the name Akbar, that itself means great. Use his given name. Jaluddin or his birth name Badruddin!!!
 

New threads

Articles

Top