The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[Sabir]

I'm not sure why no Pala empire has made it to the list, Budhhism as well as Nalanda and Bikaramshila reached peak at his time. Their territorial extent as well as longevity far exceeds many kings in the list.

Also I'm bit sceptical about Shivaji getting so many votes. He did prevent Mughal inroad to South India, but he dealt with his non Maratha subjects in a rather harsh way. The peasantry had to pay 30% of their income to keep Maratha war machine on roll and those were collected by force. The atrocity of Maratha horsemen on common people at Bengal border has found it's way to local folklore and was an annual event.

Guess I opened pandora's box!

Bargies were non-regular Maratha Soldiers ; they did not recieve any salary from the State, so share of loot was only income. They became a threat under Bhakar Pundit and reached as far as Bengal during Aliwardi Khan. But, during Shvaji , I dont thing they did much of their atrocity; I am not sure whether they exist that time. Most of the accounts say Shivaji was tolerant against non-Hindus.

 

[Param]

he could have done all that without falling for the divide and rule AIT crap tottered out by the british and created a wedge between the people.
pushing for such hare divisive policies as well as separation of first south India and then TN from India makes him no better than the pakis in this respect. no wonder jinnah supported him.

this is the difference between a great man like Ambedkar and a narrow minded parochial thinker like periyar. Ambedkar strengthened India by empowering the so called lower castes while periyar weakened India by divisive politics. like the proverbial frog in a well, periyar could never get over his narrow regional identity, he was never an Indian and never thought for India.
LTTE fanboys like you may worship him but kindly do not ask the rest of India to worship him.

Periyar did nothing wrong. Today's India is very different from the India of the 1930's and the 1940's.
His thoughts and ideas had relevance to his times. They should not be judged in today's perspective.

And for your information, Periayar EV Ramasamy Naicker used to be in the congress party in the beginnig. Infact he took part in the Non co operation movement and was arrested. He was one of the most important INC leaders in Madras province at that time.
His change of thought was a result of first hand Casteism that he experienced & that he hated.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Yes, he would have been inclusive, if he would just toed the high caste line. Not Paki at all.

Cmon man ! Periyar came up with all kinds of crazy racial theories, stuff like Hanuman was a South Indian dalit and assumed everything is a conspiracy by the Aryan Race ! Ambedkar on the other hand was a extremely intelligent and rational person

 

[Adux]

Cmon man ! Periyar came off with all kinds of crazy racial theories, stuff like Hanuman was a South Indian dalit and assumed everything is a conspiracy by the Aryan Race ! Ambedkar on the other hand was a extremely intelligent and rational person

Why does that matter? Yes, it is loony, Just because I endorsed one of his view points, doesnt mean I endorse all!

There are people who view Rama as Aryan and Ravana as dravidian, and Ramayana as a Aryan and Dravidian fight! I dont know, I dont care.

The utter lie being propagated here that meritocracy was a system in India? Really? It has become crystal clear especially after SATA's post, that Casteism existed during Mauryan Empire, one could even argue, it was to bring back Casteism that Chankya brought in Kshatriya Mori born Chandragupta.

I suggest you read Abhir's post about Shivaji's treatment of non-marathi's? It would give you an idea how King's saw India, they didnt think of it in terms of a civilizational entiity or nation. It was just mere territory. So people in Bengal who got fvcked by Shivaji just like Aurangazeb should sing praises for him? Why? Because he is part of Indian civilization, all the while he never thought in that manner?
No, Indian King has ever thought of a equal society irrespective of religion, creed, language and region, except like it or not, Akbar.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Why does that matter? Yes, it is loony, Just because I endorsed one of his view points, doesnt mean I endorse all!

Okay

It has become crystal clear especially after SATA's post, that Casteism existed during Mauryan Empire, one could even argue, it was to bring back Casteism that Chankya brought in Kshatriya Mori born Chandragupta.

Ironically, Chandragupta took up Jainism at the later stages of his life

No, Indian King has ever thought of a equal society irrespective of religion, creed, language and region, except like it or not, Akbar.

Not even Ashoka ?

 

[Adux]

Okay

Ironically, Chandragupta took up Jainism at the later stages of his life

Yes, Good on him. Not that it did much good with the already damaged society, as you would be see from his son's rule.

Not even Ashoka ?

Sorry, I missed him. Yes him too. One could say Ashoka was more successful with it, while Akbar though tried much harder, was never a success with it.

 

[Param]

Cmon man ! Periyar came up with all kinds of crazy racial theories, stuff like Hanuman was a South Indian dalit and assumed everything is a conspiracy by the Aryan Race ! Ambedkar on the other hand was a extremely intelligent and rational person

If that is crazy stuff then what do you call our Mythology?
And Btw how do you know that Hanuman was not South Indian? If you can believe Ramayan was true then why not apply the same standards for Periyar's theory about Hanuman???
If Ramayan is true then this could also be true.

 

[Abir]

Bargies were non-regular Maratha Soldiers ; they did not recieve any salary from the State, so share of loot was only income. They became a threat under Bhakar Pundit and reached as far as Bengal during Aliwardi Khan. But, during Shvaji , I dont thing they did much of their atrocity; I am not sure whether they exist that time. Most of the accounts say Shivaji was tolerant against non-Hindus.

They were not irregular soldiers but under the command of Raghoji I Bhonsle. Yes, after the demise of Shivaji himself, but under the Maratha kingdom.

What I'm trying to say is that Shivaji's empire was essentially a Maratha empire. Was he a great guerilla leader - yes, did he pioneer irregular warfare inIndia - yes he did. Was he more or less secular compared to others in that era, indeed he was.

But do the above facts make greatest Indian king?

I dare say no! It makes him a great Maratha king, or a great secular king and a brave leader, but he wasn't instrumental at building a nation of one identity, rather non-Maratha subjects had been forced to pay 30% of their income as Chauth and sardeshmukhi! How is Chauth any different from Jijiya? One discriminates base on religion, other ethnicity.

Last but not the least, why not give the same fanfare to Ahom kingdom which was more successful to thwart Mughals than Shivaji?

 

[Rahul M]

Param, just a few pages back you were saying people like chanakya should have been judged by today's standards but now you are saying actions only 70 years ago "should not be judged in today's perspective.'" !! some mental gymnastics, that !

nothing existed 30-40 years ago that justified advocating separatism. the crooked and criminal will always find excuses to justify their crimes.
periyar, regarding these issues was just a super success story of british divide and rule. cook up a stupid theory and let the bloody natives fight among themselves. in periyar they found a champion for this internal fight, what more could they ask for ?
there have been hundreds of social reformers before and after periyar, other than his followers no one advocated separatism.

And for your information, Periayar EV Ramasamy Naicker used to be in the congress party in the beginnig. Infact he took part in the Non co operation movement and was arrested. He was one of the most important INC leaders in Madras province at that time.

I know that well. jinnah was an important congress leader too. only reason periyar didn't succeed where jinnah did is because most tamils did not subscribe to his divisive politics.
so go on, may be jinnah is your hero, just like periyar is. but he is no hero of mine or the rest of Indians, (whatever be their caste). if their lot has improved it is no thanks to periyar. he never bothered for anyone outside his narrow regional identity, he never bothered for 'us'.
in rest of India we will remember him as the man who wanted to divide India. just another jinnah wannabe.

 

[Adux]

If that is crazy stuff then what do you call our Mythology?
And Btw how do you know that Hanuman was not South Indian? If you can believe Ramayan was true then why not apply the same standards for Periyar's theory about Hanuman???
If Ramayan is true then this could also be true.

I did not think on those lines, good post.

 

[Iamanidiot]

If periyar is a loony then what about the cow orifice worship and the cow pee panacea propagated by the tampons in the cow belt?

 

[LurkerBaba]

If that is crazy stuff then what do you call our Mythology?
And Btw how do you know that Hanuman was not South Indian?

I said South Indian Dalit. Periyar implied that Hanuman being a monkey was to mock the Dalits. Hanuman being devoted to Ram was to shown the submissiveness of Dravidians to Aryans (or something like that)

If you can believe Ramayan was true then why not apply the same standards for Periyar's theory about Hanuman???
If Ramayan is true then this could also be true.

When did I ever say that Ramayan was true ? Infact it's the atheist Periyar who assumed it's true and that it was a conflict between Aryans and Dravidians

If periyar is a loony then what about the cow orifice worship and the cow pee panacea propagated by the tampons in the cow belt?

Religious loonies, atheist loony ?

 

[Rahul M]

Abir, you are referring to 'borgi elo dese' right ? seems like we bongs get our history lessons right from childhood.

 

[Iamanidiot]

@Adux SATA I think mostly might be a Nambhoodri.Periyar and Narayana guru brought the greatest change for the common man in South

 

[Iamanidiot]

@LB an atheist loony who improved the living standard of the whole lot is much better

 

[Rahul M]

If periyar is a loony then what about the cow orifice worship and the cow pee panacea propagated by the tampons in the cow belt?

loony as well. however, I find it is not cow belt loonies who are selling packaged cow pee these days. the label is certainly not in hindi.

 

[LurkerBaba]

@LB an atheist loony who improved the living standard of the whole lot is much better

I think a discussion started on these lines when Ambedkar and Periyar were said to be the same. I just disagreed with that fact.

I would agree with Rahul M, Periyar seemed to have a lot of characteristics common with Jinnah. He engineered a new racial identity, said people belonged to different civilizations (Arya/Dravida), wanted to kick out the "Aryans" and even wanted a separate country (Dravida Nadu)

 

[Iamanidiot]

loony as well. however, I find it is not cow belt loonies who are selling packaged cow pee these days. the label is certainly not in hindi.

mostly catering to the brahmin segment .The only thing about cow i like is its meat great curry and its milk

 

[Abir]

Abir, you are referring to 'borgi elo dese' right ? seems like we bongs get our history lessons right from childhood.

Hello Sir, are you not the moderator at Bharat-Rakshak? Didn't know you are Bengali.

 

[Param]

Param, just a few pages back you were saying people like chanakya should have been judged by today's standards but now you are saying actions only 70 years ago "should not be judged in today's perspective.'" !! some mental gymnastics, that !

nothing existed 30-40 years ago that justified advocating separatism. the crooked and criminal will always find excuses to justify their crimes.
periyar, regarding these issues was just a super success story of british divide and rule. cook up a stupid theory and let the bloody natives fight among themselves. in periyar they found a champion for this internal fight, what more could they ask for ?
there have been hundreds of social reformers before and after periyar, other than his followers no one advocated separatism.

I know that well. jinnah was an important congress leader too. only reason periyar didn't succeed where jinnah did is because most tamils did not subscribe to his divisive politics.
so go on, may be jinnah is your hero, just like periyar is. but he is no hero of mine or the rest of Indians, (whatever be their caste). if their lot has improved it is no thanks to periyar. he never bothered for anyone outside his narrow regional identity, he never bothered for 'us'.
in rest of India we will remember him as the man who wanted to divide India. just another jinnah wannabe.

Now you're getting personal.

Firstly I am not talking about 30,40 years ago , but 60,70 yrs ago. Here is enough proof_The Hindu : Hindi chauvinism

What is the reason for divergence in my ' today's perspective remark' regarding Chanakya and Periyar? _

1. Because the issues that gave rise to Separatist tendencies before Independence do not exist in 21 century TN and most of India.India has a federal nature and there is no institutionaised discrimination. Basically the sharing of powers done wonder's to India's unity.

2.On the other hand the caste system exists till date, though it is not institutionalised. Dalits and many obc stil suffer from the backwardness that was a product of the caste system. Hence what started more than 2000 years ago still continues.Hence it is seen in a modern perspective because of its relevance today.

I don't give a S##t about Jinnah. Have you ever come across a southie praising jinnah? Nah it was a northie politician who wrote a book praising Jinnah. And there is no dearth of 'Aman ki Asha' bleeding hearts who are fond of their racial brethrens cross the border.