The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[Adux]

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.

Are you trying to say Hinduism had no violent role in the demise of Buddhism? Well, I dont agree with Hindu point of view especially when it is at fault; consider that the Indianess in me, which is quite different to being born a Hindu. This we are victims onlee and never have done anything to wrong any other community sprouted by the Hindu's is a big fat lie, a criminal one at that. Hindu's were not much different that the Islamist, when it meant killing the less powerful. The only difference is Islam was able to do that in a much bigger scale than the Hindu's, call that 'kazhivu kedu' or rather impotence of Hindu's, they would have done it if they could as their ancestors did to the Buddhist.

 

[Yusuf]

Again the thread is going another way and this time on what Buddhism is about.

Let's refer the OP and stick with it.

 

[A chauhan]

Even i have dreams to follow the life of a Buddhist at least once in my life if it suits me i'll stick to it...

 

[warriorextreme]

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.

Satavahana dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ 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 was saying all about Hinduism].

in fact budhism was biggest religion in india after asoka converted to budhism(Actually at that time they were not religions actually but just sects of dharmic religions) but later things got really bad after death of asoka....whole kingdom was almost defenseless due to ahimsa n all....at that time greek invader minider(mentioned as milind in budha literature) asked budhist monks to help him invade...monks gave access of their monastries to his army and thus pushyamitra sunga who was commander of bruhadth's army asked bruhadath to pay attention to this...but he was insulted and thus pushyamitra killed bruhadath and declared himself as king...many vedic warriors also joined pushyamitra and he then attacked mininder in current pakistan who was ready to invade....
after this many budhists came back to vedic way of life...

 

[warriorextreme]

Again the thread is going another way and this time on what Buddhism is about.

Let's refer the OP and stick with it.

Indian history spans through tens of thousands of years actually and religion plays major part in it...not many people know about these kings of india...

 

[nrj]

These are the kings listed in OP -

-Ajatasatru: 5th Century BC

-Chandragupta Maurya: 4th Century BC

-Emperor Ashoka: 3rd Century BC

-Kharavela: 2nd Century BC

-Gautamiputra Satakarni: 1st Century CE

-Chandragupta II: 4th Century

-Yasodharman: 6th Century

-Harsha Vardhana: 7th Century

-Pulakesi II: 7th Century

-Nagabhata and Bappa Rawal: 8th Century

-Vikramaditya II: 8th Century

-Amoghavarsha: 9th Century

-Dharmapala: 9th Century

-Devapala: 9th Century

-Mihira Bhoja 9th Century

-Raja Chola: 10th Century

-Raja Bhoja: 11th Century

-Rajendra Chola: 11th Century

-Vikramaditya VI: 12th Century

-Prithviraj Chauhan: 12th Century

-Jatavarman Pandyan: 13th Century

-Singhana II: 13th Century

-Narasimhadeva: 13th Century

-Hakka and Bukka: 14th Century

-Musunuri Kaapaaneedu: 14th Century

-Rana Kumbha: 15th Century

-Deva Raya II: 15th Century

-Kapilendradeva: 15th Century

-Maharana Pratap: 16th Century

-Sri Krishna Devaraya: 16th Century

-Shivaji Maharaj: 17th Century

-Baji Rao: 18th Century

-Balaji Bajirao: 18th Century

--

Lets have a poll here. Posters can vote & give their explanation why particular king is the greatest. If you want addition in candidates, please post.

This journey of Buddhism & Hinduism & tyrant rule of Islamists is exploding the topic beyond its capacity. We can have different topic to debate on how Hindu kings dealt Buddhism.

 

[S.A.T.A]

Are you trying to say Hinduism had no violent role in the demise of Buddhism? Well, I dont agree with Hindu point of view especially when it is at fault; consider that the Indianess in me, which is quite different to being born a Hindu. This we are victims onlee and never have done anything to wrong any other community sprouted by the Hindu's is a big fat lie, a criminal one at that. Hindu's were not much different that the Islamist, when it meant killing the less powerful. The only difference is Islam was able to do that in a much bigger scale than the Hindu's, call that 'kazhivu kedu' or rather impotence of Hindu's, they would have done it if they could as their ancestors did to the Buddhist.

Some early British indologists have commented on how there is scarcely any evidence to suggest that Buddhists where subject any violence when political patronage on a significant scale ceased towards Buddhism.This lack of voluminous evidence was probably not because Hindus did not persecute the remnant of Buddhism,but due to the fact that Indian society did not preserve the evidence that incriminates them in such acts,if indeed it were so.

This is due to the fact that indian national society and it history was Hindu and why would Hindus put a bad spin on their history.The problem is people here are desperately in search for a neutral or secularized history of India,which will damn every body in equal measure,or to that effect.The fact is Indian history is narrated from the Hindu point of view and there you shall not find self denouement.

A society does not have any use for history which exist only for the sake of academic principle.The society needs history that tells its history,its triumphs,the persecution it went through and how it overcame them,Indian history is a narrative of how the Hindu society did all that.

 

[Yusuf]

Indian history spans through tens of thousands of years actually and religion plays major part in it...not many people know about these kings of india...

The thread will be an education for those who don't know the history. Everyone does not know everything. We learn from others.

 

[Abir]

He's not an Indian. Descendant of an Uzbek invader, I don't think he'd ever be considered one. No matter how much you try to blend in for generations, if you still migrate to Europe you'd be considered an Indian. Something like that. Liberal or not, that can be debatable, but he's not Indian.

Pray tell me, dear Sir, what makes a man an Indian?

 

[civfanatic]

These are the kings listed in OP -

-Ajatasatru: 5th Century BC

-Chandragupta Maurya: 4th Century BC

-Emperor Ashoka: 3rd Century BC

-Kharavela: 2nd Century BC

-Gautamiputra Satakarni: 1st Century CE

-Chandragupta II: 4th Century

-Yasodharman: 6th Century

-Harsha Vardhana: 7th Century

-Pulakesi II: 7th Century

-Nagabhata and Bappa Rawal: 8th Century

-Vikramaditya II: 8th Century

-Amoghavarsha: 9th Century

-Dharmapala: 9th Century

-Devapala: 9th Century

-Mihira Bhoja 9th Century

-Raja Chola: 10th Century

-Raja Bhoja: 11th Century

-Rajendra Chola: 11th Century

-Vikramaditya VI: 12th Century

-Prithviraj Chauhan: 12th Century

-Jatavarman Pandyan: 13th Century

-Singhana II: 13th Century

-Narasimhadeva: 13th Century

-Hakka and Bukka: 14th Century

-Musunuri Kaapaaneedu: 14th Century

-Rana Kumbha: 15th Century

-Deva Raya II: 15th Century

-Kapilendradeva: 15th Century

-Maharana Pratap: 16th Century

-Sri Krishna Devaraya: 16th Century

-Shivaji Maharaj: 17th Century

-Baji Rao: 18th Century

-Balaji Bajirao: 18th Century

--

Lets have a poll here. Posters can vote & give their explanation why particular king is the greatest. If you want addition in candidates, please post.

This journey of Buddhism & Hinduism & tyrant rule of Islamists is exploding the topic beyond its capacity. We can have different topic to debate on how Hindu kings dealt Buddhism.

The OP's premise is flawed. He includes minor Hindu monarchs like Jayavarman Pandyan and Kapilendradeva and yet ignores monumental, non-Hindu emperors like Kanishka and Akbar.

How can we have a fair poll on such a premise?

 

[nrj]

The OP's premise is flawed. He includes minor Hindu monarchs like Jayavarman Pandyan and Kapilendradeva and yet ignores monumental, non-Hindu emperors like Kanishka and Akbar.

How can we have a fair poll on such a premise?

We can have additions of names.

There is no other way to settle this argument of which King was greatest.

 

[Abir]

Who is an Indian?

Is it the language, if yes, is it the Aryan family of languages or Dravidian family of languages.

Is it being born in the landmass that we call Republic of India, then where would we put Ranjit Singh, who was born now what is Pakistan.

Or is it boils down to a particular faith?

 

[LurkerBaba]

Who is an Indian?
Is it the language, if yes, is it the Aryan family of languages or Dravidian family of languages.

Both are fine

Is it being born in the landmass that we call Republic of India, then where would we put Ranjit Singh, who was born now what is Pakistan.

Born in the Subcontinent, east of the Indus

That is the criteria I would apply (something like that)

 

[civfanatic]

Who is an Indian?

Is it the language, if yes, is it the Aryan family of languages or Dravidian family of languages.

Is it being born in the landmass that we call Republic of India, then where would we put Ranjit Singh, who was born now what is Pakistan.

Or is it boils down to a particular faith?

An Indian is anyone who considers the Indian subcontinent to be his motherland.

The Indian subcontinent is defined as the landmass stretching from the Indus River to the Brahmaputra Valley, and from the Himalayas to Sri Lanka.

 

[Galaxy]

Who is an Indian?

Is it the language, if yes, is it the Aryan family of languages or Dravidian family of languages.

Is it being born in the landmass that we call Republic of India, then where would we put Ranjit Singh, who was born now what is Pakistan.

Or is it boils down to a particular faith?

Pakistan and India was single nation before 1947. So, He was Indian. Indeed, everyone be Pakistan/India/Bangladesh before 1947 as Indian.

Not particular faith, Today All Indians are Indians irrespective of religion.

since, T-Shering is not online and he will also say the same.

Akbar was not Indian, he was Uzbek. His grand-father was Uzbek too. He married to Indian woman, so next generation onwards may be Indian, But he was Uzbek. Read all post.

 

[civfanatic]

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).

Partially disagree. Today Hindi and Urdu are the dominant languages spoken in North India and Pakistan (i.e. the former Mughal Empire), and both are extensively influenced by Persian. In fact the relationship between Persian and Hindi/Urdu in the Mughal context is similar to the relationship between Sanskrit and Prakrit in ancient India. Sanskrit was the official language of the court, while Prakrit was the language of the commoners.

The linguistic and literary traditions of the court are usually more sophisticated than those of commoners.

 

[Yusuf]

.

Akbar was not Indian, he was Uzbek. His grand-father was Uzbek too. He married to Indian woman, so next generation onwards may be Indian, But he was Uzbek. Read all post.

That issue was dead and buried as it took the thread OT. but before you ask others to read all the posts, did you read yourself? Just because you kept saying a 100 times be was Uzbek, does it make him not an "Indian". Do you know his mother was a Sindhi? That he was born in Sindh? By your own definition of those who you qualify as Indian pre 1947, Akbar was born within those boundaries.

 

[Abir]

An Indian is anyone who considers the Indian subcontinent to be his motherland.

The Indian subcontinent is defined as the landmass stretching from the Indus River to the Brahmaputra Valley, and from the Himalayas to Sri Lanka.

Be assured later Mughals knew nothing but the subcontinent to assume some alien land as their homeland.

 

[LurkerBaba]

In fact the relationship between Persian and Hindi/Urdu in the Mughal context is similar to the relationship between Sanskrit and Prakrit in ancient India. Sanskrit was the official language of the court, while Prakrit was the language of the commoners.

Agreed, but Persian the language of the elite was foreign, so the ruling class thought of themselves as a different (superior?) cultural entity. It was only later that attempts were made to translate Indian philosophy into Persian, but these attempts were cut short.

The linguistic and literary traditions of the court are usually more sophisticated than those of commoners.

True

 

[Abir]

Pakistan and India was single nation before 1947. So, He was Indian. Indeed, everyone be Pakistan/India/Bangladesh before 1947 as Indian.

Not particular faith, Today All Indians are Indians irrespective of religion.

since, T-Shering is not online and he will also say the same.

Akbar was not Indian, he was Uzbek. His grand-father was Uzbek too. He married to Indian woman, so next generation onwards may be Indian, But he was Uzbek. Read all post.

What about the lands which were not in that single nation before 1947? Would you call a Burmese also an Indian?

So what if his grand father was Uzbek? There are many people in India who's father/mother is an European/African/Chinese.