The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[Adux]

I have always maintained that the term Kshatriya is a varna and not a caste.

Really, I wonder what that silly old man meant , when said 'person of high birth'

Even if we assumed that I do not know what Chanakya had in mind then, you do not know better. Hence, one has to go to the etymological roots of the term Kshatriya, and the 'Kshatriya lineage' theory gets tossed out the window

.
Not really, CG was born to a person from Kshatriya caste as said purana's and buddhist text.

When did I justify the ouster of a King by virtue of his birth? Please quote or you are prevaricating.

Please go back couple of pages.

I did not write the theories nor create the Varna System. It is not my own theory. Again, this has been discussed in the relevant thread.

You were quite excited about it.

His inability or lack of concern towards the threats from the west (Greeks).

So it was important for Chankya to find a person of 'high birth'

Try to humble yourself first before you ask others to be humble. Only then you will correctly understand what others are saying instead of cooking up a whole plethora of fairy tales and accusing others of having said those things, which they did not

.

Fairy tales, What I said is backed up in quite few purana's and buddhist text, now it seems the Arthashastra too. OOO, Burn.

S.A.T.A. brought out a paragraph that has nothing to do with Chandragupta's heritage or ancestry. I find his arguments full of obscurantism and lacking objectivity. Apparently, he, and you, do not understand the difference between (1) what Chanakya himself believed and (2) what he observed the prosperous people to believe or perceive.

Yes, it is right, you are quite intelligent. (Sarcasm)

Practicality is great, perhaps not to you, but to me and many others. If you want to live in la-la-land, by all means do so. It is not surprising that you fail to appreciate the great mind that Chanakya had.

Bin Qasim also had a great mind, that doesnt make him a good human being.

.

I never said Chandragupta was Shudra.

You do know that my response was for two people

You made that up. I said he was a smlechha. Read the Arthashastra again. It clearly says that Aryan Society was broken up into four Varnas, which means, Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras were all Aryans and then we had those that were not part of this ensemble, and did not follow the laid out rules, were termed as smlechhas

Where were you when Chankya needed such a great mind. Who clearly knows better than what is written in Arthshastra, Purana's and Buddhist chronology.

Chandragupta was one among them, born into a family of peacock tamers. The greatness of Chanakya lies in the fact that he wanted pure meritocracy over nepotism. Chandragupta proved his merit, time and again, by defeating the Greeks, apart from the Nandas. Chanakya's greatness is not limited to that, but I will dwell on what is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Yes, it was therefore important to replace the king, who already had a formidable army, and replace them with a person of 'high birth'. This is from Chankya, who unlike Nanda's who basically built their empire in the last 80 years. Ofcourse Chankya and his 'high birth' prodigy knew better.

 

[pankaj nema]

@ Adux

Your replies to my post are so incoherent .

It just shows the immense bitter ness and anger you are carrying on GOD knows what

And I am loosing , my A$$ . I know how much RESPECT Shivaji and Marathas have in this country

This poll is just a " forum exercise "

From Hariyana to Orissa to Tamil Nadu and of course till Gujarat the Maratha empire AT ITS PEAK
was the LARGEST, post the Mughal Empire and that too it came on its own without any help from
any other Hindu King

And I am bloody well proud of it .

Also Who is LOOKING down upon you I dont understand

Your reply on my point that "non payment of jaziya " was the only gain for Hindu Converts
is ALSO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE

SO could you please write your replies again

 

[pankaj nema]

Not really funny dude, my great great grandfather was the Admiral of Travncore, under Vellu Thampi Dalwa. Yet the atrocities my own family has gone through, I am not going to take it in a lighter vein, especially unlike the jews, we havent got our justice or closure.

Adux

I went back a few pages and found this post written by you

Is this the cause of your anger and bitter ness

What exactly happened Care to elaborate ?

 

[Adux]

@ Adux

Your replies to my post are so incoherent .

It just shows the immense bitter ness and anger you are carrying on GOD knows what

And I am loosing , my A$$ . I know how much RESPECT Shivaji and Marathas have in this country

This poll is just a " forum exercise "

From Hariyana to Orissa to Tamil Nadu and of course till Gujarat the Maratha empire AT ITS PEAK
was the LARGEST, post the Mughal Empire and that too it came on its own without any help from
any other Hindu King

And I am bloody well proud of it .

Also Who is LOOKING down upon you I dont understand

Your reply on my point that "non payment of jaziya " was the only gain for Hindu Converts
is ALSO NOT UNDERSTANDABLE

SO could you please write your replies again

Please use the ignore button, since you and I have different meanings for the term 'great'

 

[pankaj nema]

Adux

Atleast your replies should be understandable and coherent isnt it ?

Secondly as far as Chanakya is concerned more than 2200 years after his death He is still
admired , respected , READ and researched by scholars all over the world

Isnt that GREATNESS by any definition in this world , that you and I inhabit

Our Pakistani friends also study Chanakya in their Military academy . This is called Learning from your enemy

 

[pankaj nema]

Quite hard, unlike Yusuf I dont have infinite patience for people who make light of my people's sufferings. If some are going to be politically incorrect about my people's suffering's then expect the same back.

Adux

What exactly is this term " my people's sufferings "

Please clarify

 

[Adux]

Adux

Atleast your replies should be understandable and incoherent isnt it ?
Secondly as far as Chanakya is concerned more than 2200 years after his death He is still
admired , respected , READ and researched by scholars all over the world

So is Genghis Khan

Isnt that GREATNESS by any definition in this world , that you and I inhabit

Nope

Our Pakistani friends also study Chanakya in their Military academy . This is called Learning from your enemy

I really dont care about the son.

 

[pmaitra]

Really, I wonder what that silly old man meant , when said 'person of high birth'

He meant nothing if you take out 4 words out of a complete sentence and out of context.

Not really, CG was born to a person from Kshatriya caste as said purana's and buddhist text.

No he was not. He was born into a family of peacock tamers which is obvious from his surname. Also, Kshatriya is not a caste. Try not to argue about things you don't understand.

Please go back couple of pages.

You failed to quote. End of story.

You were quite excited about it.

Excited about facts, not your fictitious premises.

So it was important for Chankya to find a person of 'high birth'

You don't understand English. Chanakya's observations about prosperous people's thinking is not his own thinking. Leave it, you don't have enough gray matter to understand this.

Fairy tales, What I said is backed up in quite few purana's and buddhist text, now it seems the Arthashastra too. OOO, Burn.

Backed up by what? You cannot change the fact that Chandragupta's surname was Maurya. You can continue to beat around the bush.

Yes, it is right, you are quite intelligent. (Sarcasm)

Surely more than you. Try to get a cool head on your shoulders and you could hope to reach my level of intelligence. An angry head loses its thinking power.

Trying to be a mod again, now that is sad.

You are the one who gets periodically reprimanded. It is your posts that get deleted. It is sad that you lack the minimum sense of shame.

Bin Qasim also had a great mind, that doesnt make him a good human being.

Off topic.

You do know that my response was for two people, you and other silly little rssbot.

Heck, you haven't been here long enough to know whether I am an rssbot or not. I am sure old timers will have a great chuckle seeing your ramblings.

Where were you when Chankya needed such a great mind. Who clearly knows better than what is written in Arthshastra, Purana's and Buddhist chronology.

I am here to show the blind sheep and the directionless plebs some direction, especially the angry ones.

Yes, it was therefore important to replace the king, who already had a formidable army, and replace them with a person of 'high birth'. This is from Chankya, who unlike Nanda's who basically built their empire in the last 80 years. Ofcourse Chankya and his 'high birth' prodigy knew better.

Yeah, keep repeating that high 'birth thing.' I did not make such a claim so I do not know why you keep throwing that at me.

 

[pmaitra]

Adux

What exactly is this term " my people's sufferings "

Please clarify

He is best left alone bud! His head is full of anger and heart full of hatred against anything that is 'upper' caste and that is evident in his posts. He wants to take out his anger again posters here at DFI for whatever his people suffered in the past. I wonder if anyone he is yelling his guts out against, or their ancestors, did any harm to his people.

Moreover, he is carrying a lot of baggage, and manners, from another forum, and degrading the quality of discussion here at DFI. Everyone else is disagreeing gracefully, and we have this great person addressing others as 'son.'

Hatred and disdain is not always one sided.

 

[civfanatic]

"All men are my children. I am like a father to them. As every father desires the good and the happiness of his children, I wish that all men should be happy always."

- Samraat Asoka Maurya

 

[The Messiah]

He is best left alone bud! His head is full of anger and heart full of hatred against anything that is 'upper' caste and that is evident in his posts. He wants to take out his anger again posters here at DFI for whatever his people suffered in the past. I wonder if anyone he is yelling his guts out against, or their ancestors, did any harm to his people.

Moreover, he is carrying a lot of baggage, and manners, from another forum, and degrading the quality of discussion here at DFI. Everyone else is disagreeing gracefully, and we have this great person addressing others as 'son.'

Hatred and disdain is not always one sided.

I agree with adux's viewpoint. Like him others are also going back thousands of years to bash others, so he is only reciprocating in same way.

Of course he could be more polite but everyone's unique.

 

[Ray]

I don't wish to spoil the fun.

Take it as a friendly nudge that we must remain civil in our discussion.

If the nonsense continues, I will close the thread and ask the Mod Council to take necessary action against defaulters.

 

[Ray]

Callousness and insolence bring to bare unanimous social condemnation, while the simple efforts of politeness are admired; even in those who are otherwise despised.

 

[S.A.T.A]

@ Rahul M

What we are trying to do here,at least i hope that's what we trying ,is to dispel the apparent incongruence's with respect to the lineage of the Chandragupta Maurya,more so because there is no definitive account for the same and those that we have too many inconsistencies in the matter that they refer to Maurya alternatively as a shudra or Kshatriya alternatively.what happens when we adopt a certain position, which itself rests on uncertain terrain, is that we try to provide some reasonable basis for taking such a position.That there are textual evidences,both direct and circumstantial,which indicate towards Maurya's possible Kshatriya lineage was the sole purpose behind citing Kautilya from Arthashastra.Since we are trying to ascertain what is otherwise an ambiguous subject, every piece of evidence and reference must be used to piece together the puzzle.The reason why the Arthashastra extract was posted was because doubts had been expressed as to whether the AS made certain contentious remarks.I thought the point was fairly obvious.

I agree that the verse from the Arthashastra does not refer to the Maurya,rather the merit of the verse for our purpose is to see what standards Kautilya sets for a monarch.Kautilya was certainly a realist and was more concerned about elucidating on a pragmatic system of state administration, than on a purely ideal administration.But it must remembered that Kautilya himself was aware,and sates in his works as much,that the Arthashastra was compendium of all Arthashstra that had been written by teachers of the Shastra who came before him.Kautilya was well aware that similar to his own efforts,someone down the years would put the Arthashastra under scrutiny,hence the shastra must strive towards achieving a state of idealism which will stand the test of time and social evolution.So we can satisfy ourselves by stating that kautilya's Arthashastra espouses a pragmatic system of statecraft,without losing out on universality.

Further more we must remember that the questions to which Kautilya replies,besides citing established traditions,are hypothetical in nature and answer being elicited can be deemed as bordering on idealism,eg:

Which is better a blind king or a king going against the Shastras ?
Which is better a weak high born king or strong low born king ?
Which is better a king who stricken with disease or a new king ?


So in this context it is not wrong to interpret Kautilya's instruction on the choice between high born or low born king, as one that is most advisable, something that Kautilya would himself would have subscribed to under ideal circumstances.This argues favorably with the traditional accounts where kautilya is shown as Maurya's preceptor from the latter's younger days.If Kautlya had plans to topple the Nandas purportedly because of their base birth, and if Maurya was the lynchpin of the entire scheme,then Kaultilya certainly gave himself plenty of time,time which allowed him to prepare an ideal replacement.

I'm not trying to assert,to the extent of being indisputable, that Maurya was a Kshatriya,but merely stating that there is a strong element of plausibility that he indeed was.

 

[Adux]

I agree with adux's viewpoint. Like him others are also going back thousands of years to bash others, so he is only reciprocating in same way.

Of course he could be more polite but everyone's unique.

Thank You.
The point is simple, if a person can go 1000's of years and show the greatness of the said individual, why cannot someone have the opposite viewpoint. They maybe glorious to some, but for the OBC's and SC/ST of India atleast, they were no different to the Islamic invaders and British. If we can accuse Paki's of being affected with Stockholm syndrome, wouldnt the same apply to OBC's and SC/ST for glorifying Indian Kings who actively supported and used the caste system, raped, subjugated, looted, murdered and took part in genocide of SC/ST and OBC? Should Germans or Jewish Germans especially; glorify Hitler because he was born a German, and defeated some outside powers? Is that morality? Is that nationalism and patriotism? So, people here want OBC and SC/ST's to be complete zombies and forget their history, be a paki and worship Indian Kings who did the worst to them. Sorry, I am not ready to be equated as a Paki.

PS:The greatest idea this landmass has ever seen happened on 1947 August 15 and I am going to let those silly nitwits alone, I think the point is proved beyond doubt.

 

[Adux]

Callousness and insolence bring to bare unanimous social condemnation, while the simple efforts of politeness are admired; even in those who are otherwise despised.

Very wise words Brigadier. But sweet, glorified and polite words about Hitler to a Holocaust survivor aint going to be taken well by them. No matter how polite you are. Or was Macaulay correct about his theory on Bengali Hindu's?

 

[Rahul M]

SATA, let me point out a few thing first.

a) chanakya comments on whether high born weak king will find it easier to hold power than a low born strong king.
he does not say that a low born king is automatically poor king material. for all we know he himself disagreed with this social attitude and found ways to get chandragupta overcome this handicap. given his general methods he won't have been beyond spreading rumours about chandragupta's 'high' origins in order to legitimise his rule.

b) secondly, we are not even sure if high born means from so called higher caste. chanakya hasn't hesitated anywhere to write caste where he meant caste, why wouldn't he in this case ? could that mean that a son born of a royal father and a shudra mother (as one version of chandragupta's origin stories have it) would have been considered high born even though he was technically a so called lower caste ?

the concept of 'highborn' and 'lowborn' after all is hardly unique to India and has little to do with caste system. 2000 years ago, the greek philosopher onosander said something like 'soldiers do not like to obey a person not of high birth'. nearer home and nearer to our time the reign of bacha-i-shakoh in afghanistan was universally reviled and ended with him brutally murdered by his advisers, all because he was not 'high born' (he used to be a water carrier). as far as I know there was no caste system in either of those places. I can quote tons of such examples.

c) I am well aware of the various versions of chandragupta's origin mythos but is possible to choose which are more reliable. evidence for his shudra origins come primarily from jain texts (who do not have a vested interest in proving his origins either way) and literature of the gupta era, the guptas idolized chandragupta and his era and had no reason to commission texts that would ascribe a shudra origin to chandragupta unless it were true.
AFAIK, only some buddhist texts (other than derivative texts like puranas written much later) give him a kshatriya origin. buddhism was a religion which at the time was by the kshatriyas for the kshatriyas. chandragupta's grandson would take steps making buddhism the pre-eminent faith of the sub-continent. is it any wonder that buddhist kshatriyas would want to show chandragupta as one of their own ??

history will never be indisputable but there is stronger evidence for one set of conclusion than the other, IMHO of course.

 

[S.A.T.A]

@Rahul M

The expression abhijAto and anabhijAta which is used in the Arthashastra can easily lend itself to interpreted as both High born/born of high caste and low born/born into lower caste.The Arthashastra is generally regarded anterior to the period of the Dharma sastras,when the varnas,which earlier was merely a classification and not strictly hereditary, had come to be inextricably linked to jaitis,which were hereditary.So its possible to conceive that the expression high born(abhijAta) taken in the context of the time with its emphasis on the Varna-jati framework,easily implied one born of a high caste,without having to explicitly state the case.Again this is a hypotheses much like the rest,still a plausible one.

Its going to be impossible to choose any particular version of the story merely on the basis of the neutrality of the chronicler,because that argument can easily turned against itself.It can be argued that Chandragupta Maurya having abandoned the vedic religion in favour of Jainism and his grandson having vigorously championed the cause of Buddhism,certainly would not have any reason to go out of the way to afford the Mauryas a higher social rank.This can then be interpreted thus that Hindu literary traditions did not bestow any favor on the Mauryas and were honestly stating received wisdom.

The fact remains no single version cane be taken as proven traditions,that would be serious error in judgement.We can make certian assertion based on available data and whatever reasonable inferences we can make from them,nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Rahul M]

I dont care about others. I refuse to be looked down upon on me or my ancestors.

for all you know your ancestors were evil brahmins in chandragupta's time who looked down upon others and committed atrocities upon so called lower castes. caste identity was much too fluid, especially before the last few centuries to be sure that whatever so called caste identity you have now is the same as what your ancestors did.

also, if your narrative of unbroken oppression is true, how come your great great grandpa was an admiral ? if vellu thampi dalwa mistreated your ancestors take it up with him, he is dead for how many decades now ? do not blame the entire nation for the act of one. or the modern descendants who had nothing to do with those acts.

your attitude is as reprehensible and barbaric as the idiots who hold today's muslims culpable for atrocities by aurangzeb and not very different from manuwadi morons who thought son of a farmer was only good enough for farming.

you are as casteist as they come.

Just shows how the poor man cannot escape his fate. He can be all intelligent, brave, heck he even converted to seen as a equal, yet the evil that is caste system follows him into his new religion also.

lol. You do know that Islam has been in other places, they somehow dont have the above, that their caste or previous religion following them. You can thank the land of Hindu's for that.

no, it just shows your lack of knowledge. but like most garden variety know-it-all's you are undeterred by ignorance (or rather armed with it), you have your views cast in stone, whether they conform to facts or not.

ajlaf and ashraf has nothing to do with caste, ashraf, like syed, means high born as in descended from muhammad while ajlaf means common born. by definition a converted muslim will always be an ajlaf, irrespective of his caste.
the status of an ashraf comes with birth, not deeds. and yes, this distinction continues to be there in 'other places'.

So I should just bend over and take it, and be silent at the glorification of one tyrant bigot after the other. Then you dont know me well.

they are tyrant bigots only in your imagination unless you provide proof.
and sorry, ramblings and gutter language does not constitute proof.

Caste system was horrible everywhere, Kerala just documented it, and somehow the people decided educate themselves, called on the higher caste for what they were, murderous inhumans.

I wonder how it is possible then that my ancestors, who are considered belonging to a shudra sub-caste in bengal have been major landlords since late middle ages upto the last quarter century of british raj (but before independence) and possibly earlier.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Adux's Pov is more in resonance with the reality on ground than most people here in DFI agree with