The difference is the intentions to replace Native religion with the Foreign religion (Islam) either forcefully or treacherously in short or long term of rule/tyranny with ultimate goal to spread Islam...what each Ghazi dreams to do.
Certainly there were Muslim rulers who brought much destruction to the subcontinent. The Khiljis, Timur, Babur, and Aurangzeb all come to mind. But the problem arises when one generalises and paints all Muslim rulers with the same brush, while at the same time glossing over the actions of non-Muslim rulers.
Europe existed as a multiple kingdom's, they have instances of combined histories, so what?
Like I said, it existed above too in the case of Europe, but they were not foolish enough to force a common thread on it. We just simply dont have a all encompassing common culture. Have you noticed the line of debate over here, they are exactly talking about politics and nationalism to determine the greatness of the King.
Singh, Their reasons of creating an empire are completely different to our reason of creating this country, there are instances where the two ideologies actually clash rather than inspire us.
I am sorry it is, It is the only concept ever in Indian land mass, which has given equal rights to its vast majority of people, unlike its casteist past. For people like me, that is the greatest achievement of all.
I suggest you STFU you effin bigot. You are lucky this board doesnt ban good for nothing people like you,
Adux, in three simple sentences you have enumerated the reasons that are enough to say that this is an ILLOGICAL thread.
Exactly, did Shivaji give the same as treatment to non-marathi's as he did with his own people, did all the King's and Emperor's of the Sub-continent, did they treat all their subjects equally, forget caste which we all know what they did, lets talk about region, language etc? Did they see people who werent from their tribe, religion, caste, region, language etc all as equals like the Republic of India does? So how are they great? So how are they not foreign invader who didnt share their same ethnicity, language etc. How were the Maratha's to the Kanadiga's? You prode that enough, you will see the fallacy of this thread. Did Chandragupta Maurya make his kingdom for the 'Indian' or for 'himself'. Did he have the concept of 'Indian' or was it just what was in and around taxilla. How did he view South Indians? Where they equal to him?
Nobody asked you to reject anything. If you you want to eulogize the Mauryan empire it is your choice, but do not expect others to do the same.
Why are you bringing in Europe ?
To each his own as per his own IQ. Some of the members are way too extreme.
You are conflating different things. I am not interested in knowing why a monarch wished to increase his empire but what was his rule like and how did it impact us.
What we have today is also a very skewed system. Here is wishing for a better brighter future.
Because it is the closest or one could even say the exact replica of the Indian situation.
Those texts were quite wrong then. Its akin to saying all the people who live in Europe are Europeans not looking into Slav's, Baltic, Germanic, Finnic etc, Similarly in India, there are 2000 ethnicities, to call all of them Indian as in a generic form as Europeans is understandable but to assume that it means a monolith is not.
You are assuming that caste system is the same all over India. Do you have a Dheevara caste in Bengal or in Punjab? You say it as if it is wrong to 'hate' the caste system.
So are most continents, doesnt make all the people living in it the same. It is not. Why not gloss over everything , and just say 'we are all humans'.
Tolerance, another Kool aid Indians wanted to drink themselves, where was this famed tolerance when they subjugated, looted, killed, raped, their own people for centuries. Where was this tolerance when Indian kings killed each other's population off. Where was this tolerance, when it came to their own women folk? It is not because of tolerance we didnt attack the more powerful empires to the east of us or travel the high seas, it is the lack of capability and vision. We just werent good enough. Like it or not. The last 800-1000 years of this land mass, is nothing to be proud off.
I am not really pleased with the way you all are tolerating the completely unwarranted attack on Yusuf by some members, just because of his faith.
None of them had any impact on modern India. If anything the British had more impact, may be because of the timeline. None of the empires created any social or political movements in the large mass of present day India, for them to want to have one single ideology. Even ChandraGupta Maurya was unsuccessful, the Islamic rulers tried that with Islamizing India, and failed. Indians are way too diverse and different, to be seen as a monolith
It is evolving system, it will improve/ atleast it is not prejudicial system which stomped on 60% of the population.
really ? so how did a shudra become the first emperor of India ? and why did a brahmin help him reach that spot ?
Flash in the Pan. One instance does not change all of society. Remember who came after the Mauryas _ Sungas.soon we were bck to square one.
He is Kshatriya's according to Buddhist text, and a lot of scholar's have challenged the concept of ChandraGupta being a shudra as is given in Bharamincal writings. And even if he was, it was far before the 'beautiful, equal and god given' caste system of India came into its full glorious form.
You have not been to Kerala I see. You think 180 million muslims and their ancestors were forciably converted? And how said Islam is a good religion, for that matter which one is?
I know the caste system was not as rigid in 300BC but it did exist. Much stronger than today. Buddhism and jainisn were founded by kshatriyas who did not completely agree with Brahminical faith.
