The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[Yusuf]

Johnee people have a habit of sticking as a flock and branding others as outsiders. We don't have to go too far. Even today people in south India call north Indians as northies and look at them as "outsiders".

Even people of from one village consider the one from another village as outsider. Remember old films where a person from tele city going to a village was referred as "Shehri babu". To show he is not one of them.

So this whole outsider thing is prevalent. There is no doubt the populace of that time would have considered the invaders as outsiders.

The debate was really frivolous which took a hilarious turn even. Technically a person is native of the land bs is born in regardless of his ancestry.

Added later: The British came only to lord and loot and not stay for good. Mughals made India their home. Regardless of how they ruled, they came to stay. The Brits only had one objective, loot and fill their coffers in England.

 

[johnee]

To loose kingdom to invaders & then call them cruel, non-Indian is greatness?

Scope of greatness is for the OP to define.

The thread, as explained in the first post, was originally about great Buddhist, Hindu and Jain kings. So, Mughals are definitely dont fit in that of that criteria, unless someone wants to argue that Mughals are Buddhist/Hindu/Jain just so that they can be termed 'Great',

Secondly, the Mughals were part of Islamic onslaught on India irrespective who won or lost. The fact that they won and established their empire is well acknowledged. However, they won over Indians(Hindus) and as such cannot be great for Indians(Hindus).

Of course, it would be better if we have a specific definition of 'Greatness'.

Anyway, there is no doubt that the muslim arms were superior.

 

[nrj]

The thread, as explained in the first post, was originally about great Buddhist, Hindu and Jain kings. So, Mughals are definitely dont fit in that of that criteria, unless someone wants to argue that Mughals are Buddhist/Hindu/Jain just so that they can be termed 'Great',

Ok. So it is mandatory to accept that Akbar, She Shah Suri were non-Indians.

Secondly, the Mughals were part of Islamic onslaught on India irrespective who won or lost. The fact that they won and established their empire is well acknowledged. However, they won over Indians(Hindus) and as such cannot be great for Indians(Hindus).

Yeah that definitely puts greatness of Hindu Kings to ground. Should be shame for hindus if they say natives were organized & invaders were instituanalized islamists.

Of course, it would be better if we have a specific definition of 'Greatness'.

Anyway, there is doubt that the muslim arms were superior.

Agreed. Lack of that definition is whirling this thread in circles.


p.s Good call on arms. We should have thread on ancient arms in subcontinent specially during medieval age.

 

[johnee]

Johnee people have a habit of sticking as a flock and branding others as outsiders. We don't have to go too far. Even today people in south India call north Indians as northies and look at them as "outsiders".

Even people of from one village consider the one from another village as outsider. Remember old films where a person from tele city going to a village was referred as "Shehri babu". To show he is not one of them.

So this whole outsider thing is prevalent. There is no doubt the populace of that time would have considered the invaders as outsiders.

The debate was really frivolous which took a hilarious turn even. Technically a person is native of the land bs is born in regardless of his ancestry.

When the policies of a state(like official language) and its patronised sufi's views are based on the being foriegn, we cannot trivialise or rationalise it the way you are trying to do it.

Added later: The British came only to lord and loot and not stay for good. Mughals made India their home. Regardless of how they ruled, they came to stay. The Brits only had one objective, loot and fill their coffers in England.

One can argue that Mughals, like rest of Islamic invaders, came to subjugate the masses, spread their religion on the strength of sword, live on the loot. Yes, they settled down. That is the only distinguishing factor between British and Mughals. Merely, because they settled down, they become local? We must remember that they continued to follow and encourage foreign cultures. Infact, there seem to be continous flow of islamic settlers from all over the world into India during their rule. And these people were given a better treatment than local muslim converts. This show that inherently they favoured the foreigners over the locals for they identified with them.

 

[johnee]

Ok. So it is mandatory to accept that Akbar, She Shah Suri were non-Indians.

Well, to each his own. But, I made my point.

Yeah that definitely puts greatness of Hindu Kings to ground. Should be shame for hindus if they say natives were organized & invaders were instituanalized islamists.

I dont get your logic. How is that shameful? Do you say that it is shameful for jews that Hitler genocided them?

Agreed. Lack of that definition is whirling this thread in circles.

Actually, I thought the greatness was not limited to battleground but extended to good administration. However, your post made the point that greatness is not defined. So, we need a working definition.

p.s Good call on arms. We should have thread on ancient arms in subcontinent specially during medieval age.

Sorry, I just edited my post.

 

[Adux]

Saar, I didn't not ban him because I am a Muslim. It does not even cross my mind that way. Religion is the last thing on my mind.

Good, His idea, is to bait you, and then call on Hindu card, saying you banned him because you are a muslim, no respect for hindu views, no respect for freedom of speech etc etc, I dont think anyone of us over here would think that, So Please go ahead.

 

[nrj]

Well, to each his own. But, I made my point.

We did ours. Lets keep agenda aside.

I dont get your logic. How is that shameful? Do you say that it is shameful for jews that Hitler genocided them?

It is shameful, if we say Hindus were organized & we had natives empires with religion at top. If particular belief was instrument of rein then that genocide is shame. And yes weakness is shame for me. Don't know about others. Cruelty, non-Indianess are no excuse over defeat.


I will reject anyone's greatness when they were not able to protect its land. Not to forget it is utter failure of kshtriya dharma.

 

[Adux]

ah...so what? He has no pretensions of being 'secular'. Did he misrepresent facts?

I could agree with this.

What is greatness in your view? To kill, rape, plunder, loot the subjects is a sign of greatness?

No, it is not. But the question is, Is the same yardstick applied to Hindu rulers? Because they raped, plundered, looted, subjugated and humiliated their own Hindu subjects, the so called lower caste?

Anyway, have you read that post. If you have, you would know that only time the Mughals were stable was when they allied with Hindu Rajputs. The rest of the time. They suffered several setbacks.

Shows how Hindu's will align with anyone to keep their power. Something that is seen very clearly with Christian converts in kerala. It is also a fact, that we have lost considerable land to the west.

 

[S.A.T.A]

@PMaitra

Since you have made it a stubborn habit not to 'understand' my posts,why do persist in the futile exercise,may be you just dont have the wherewithal for such a task.Lets leave it at that for sanity's sake.

 

[johnee]

We did ours. Lets keep agenda aside.




It is shameful, if we say Hindus were organized & we had natives empires with religion at top. If particular belief was instrument of rein then that genocide is shame. And yes weakness is shame for me. Don't know about others. Cruelty, non-Indianess are no excuse over defeat.


I will reject anyone's greatness when they were not able to protect its land. Not to forget it is utter failure of kshtriya dharma.

All I can say is that your arguing 'might is right' and thats not always true. The fact that they did not give up and kept fighting and survived the struggle is a tribute to Hindu resistance.

 

[johnee]

No, it is not. But the question is, Is the same yardstick applied to Hindu rulers? Because they raped, plundered, looted, subjugated and humiliated their own Hindu subjects, the so called lower caste?

Sure, lets apply it.

 

[nrj]

All I can say is that your arguing 'might is right' and thats not always true. The fact that they did not give up and kept fighting and survived the struggle is a tribute to Hindu resistance.

I am not attempting to belittle the resistance.

I have problem with agenda which tries to discredit attackers on the basis of Indianess, invasion, cruelty, violence (each of which are ambiguous terms) And there is sense of double standard when acts of violence were persistent even within Hindu kingdoms.

 

[S.A.T.A]

If we didn't have great kings in ancient India,given the system of social organization that was prevalent at the time,we wouldn't have a scratch of what we call today as the Indian civilization.They all may not have great,but still we ought to be grateful.

 

[pmaitra]

@PMaitra

Since you have made it a stubborn habit not to 'understand' my posts,why do persist in the futile exercise,may be you just dont have the wherewithal for such a task.Lets leave it at that for sanity's sake.

Get off the high horse S.A.T.A..

I am not blind to your tricks. You have a habit of writing long and complicated sentences. You put together many sentences into one single compound sentence. Of all the simple sentences, most are factually correct and one or two are your own figments of imagination or, to put it bluntly, simply lies. You always play this trick to create the impression that you know everything. Long time back I extracted one such portion out of a sentence of yours and challenged you and this ticked you off into responding with a demand that I do not extract portions of your post to respond to.

Yes, I stubbornly pronounce I will continue to do that as long as you stubbornly continue to post drivel and rhetoric, carefully obfuscated with factually correct common knowledge.

Two can play this game and I am up for it.

 

[The Messiah]

I see this thread hasn't failed on delivering the usual rhetoric and usual deflections by the chest thumpers.

And dare i say i still haven't seen a response to adux's question.

 

[civfanatic]

I see this thread hasn't failed on delivering the usual rhetoric and usual deflections by the chest thumpers.

And dare i say i still haven't seen a response to adux's question.

Why even bother ask it, you won't be getting an answer.

It seems this thread has become a lecture for those who still harbor medieval thoughts.

 

[S.A.T.A]

Get off the high horse S.A.T.A..

I am not blind to your tricks. You have a habit of writing long and complicated sentences. You put together many sentences into one single compound sentence. Of all the simple sentences, most are factually correct and one or two are your own figments of imagination or, to put it bluntly, simply lies. You always play this trick to create the impression that you know everything. Long time back I extracted one such portion out of a sentence of yours and challenged you and this ticked you off into responding with a demand that I do not extract portions of your post to respond to.

Yes, I stubbornly pronounce I will continue to do that as long as you stubbornly continue to post drivel and rhetoric, carefully obfuscated with factually correct common knowledge.

Two can play this game and I am up for it.

Dear Pmaitra Your Impatience for a lengthy discourse and inability to digest seemingly complex thought contained in it is well known to me.perhaps your intellect cannot absorb things unless they are segmented and reduced to an abstract and fed at a convenient pace.Unfortunately not all are are comfortable at this not are intellectually inclined to indulge in it.Look i empathize with the fact that i may not come across to you as somebody whose thought process is easily perceptible,however my belief its a problem peculiar to you and some only can address.My prayers will be with you.

P.S:Being stubborn on anything ,i have found to my misfortune,is not something that is always practical.Even though i had sworn never engage the simple minded,i always end up making an exception.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Buddy here comes my thread. yippi. And the greatest king in the entire indian history was none other than Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of Mauryan Dynasty and Empire.

The only king to unify entire subcontinent under one umbrella.

With unmatched military power, great teachers, advisors and STRONG HOLD OVER HIS CAPTURED TERRITORIES THROUGH AN EXCELLENT ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. Able executives, mastery in the art of espionage.

The sense and ability to manage internal and external affairs not only with emotions but with sharpness of thoughts, cleverness and stability. And the best thing, justice was the man priority under his rule.

IF ANY HAS THE STRENGTH TO OBJECT WITH ANY OF THE POINTS MENTIONED ABOVE THEN PLEASE LET ME KNOW BECAUSE THEN I HAVE TO SHUT HIS MOUTH WITH MY EXPLANATIONS.

 

[A chauhan]

^^ I agree Yatharth Singh !

There are some posters here who can not digest a pinch of appraisal of Hinduism, those who can not differentiate between two things "Exception" and "General Rules". They each and every time create every thread an Anti-Hindu thread, and I have seen this attitude in many threads like "Let us be Hindus" , "Plot to kill Ayodhya Judges..." while the thread starter has already stated that he intended only Hindu/Buddhist/... king ,so there was no need to drag in the nationality of Akbar or Tipu Sultan, but some people dragged, I consider those members as Frustrated people (frustrated with their own religion) who do not find a trivial concept to be appraised in their own religion and start puking falsely against Hinduism with malicious intentions. Even they went back to 50-65,000 years in order to prove that Hindus are not native people or were original inhabitants in a thread where we are discussing about greatest of the Kings and converted the thread into Hindu vs Muslim vs Buddhist thread. They try to drag in the African map with anti-Hindu intentions.

They completely derailed the thread !!

While it is an evident fact that Hinduism is one the oldest religion of the world (almost 3000 to 4000 years) it is possible to have extremists in Hindus too,when just 1500 years old Islam can have plenty of extremists loaded with AK47s doing bombings all over the world then it also becomes possible for Hinduism (which is 3000-4000 years old) to have such people... but how many you have seen ? some people quote Hindu king's attack over Sikhs, some people quote Hindu king's attack over Buddhists, and they start criticizing the whole religion for one or two exceptional events which happens in almost all religions as a general rule. Rajputs might be a reason behind the decline of Buddhists but Buddhism was highly supported and nourished by Hindu Kings themselves, and you guys forgot to mention it !

I see this thread hasn't failed on delivering the usual rhetoric and usual deflections by the chest thumpers.

And dare i say i still haven't seen a response to adux's question.

Shooting on someone else's shoulders? I can't say what you dare or not but you are completely an Anti-Hindu person. Audux have been answered by post no. 148, 156 and many more, did you mind to read them? I dare you to ask one simple question "You haven't posted a single ON TOPIC post on this thread, have you?

BTW the thread is still undecided and remain so until we add a poll option for Hindu/Buddhist ... Kings. Chandragupta Maurya is no doubt a winner of this thread, Asoka learnt how to rule from his King father, Akbar did the same but Chandragupta Maurya created an Empire without any King father.

 

[civfanatic]

Chandragupta Maurya is revered only by Indians, whereas Asoka is revered throughout Asia, and even the whole world.