Re: musslimS HAD IT EASY in the middle ages ...
by siddharth on May 13, 2010 01:00 AM
Salman Khurshid should research on his own origin. height of hypocrisy is labeling mugals as seculars. It is laughable. Salman Khurshid must have learned some texts from madarsa books and published this crap. Soon xians will follow same labeling Hitler as true secular.
mailerumsfield seems to be an avid Mughal supporter.
But pls dont call them secular. They might have done good things, but when it comes to religion, they were bad. Period.
If you take infrastructure development alone, the Britishers did 100 times more than what the Mughals did in 700 years.
There have been physical contributions by our rulers which were good to us, but we are not talking about that here. We are talking about what they did to our society. In that way I would rate the Britishers above the Mughals. They didnt do any forced conversions (its the Portuguese who did it in Goa). They didnt rape our women. What did they was to plunder our wealth. But thats what countries conquer other countries for, is it not?
But I dont know of any advancement in our country while the Mughals ruled. Actually, we were left behind in the industrial revolution that was happening in the west. The renaissance, enlightenment, industrial revolution, we missed all of them during the Mughal rule.
Britishers were the lesser of the evil among them.
Re: Mughals were not secular
by vinayak purohit on May 13, 2010 09:14 AM
mailerumsfield seems to be an avid Mughal supporter.
mr me u people are against moghuls only because ,they were mzlms.
brtshrs built infrastructure to transport raw material to britain.they sucked india to a level that HALF POPULATION OF BENGAL ORRISA DIED BECAUSE OF STARVATION.when food was available. british institutions were built with money robbed from india. they divided india on caste /religous basis. mzlm contribution was great and great.they never took money out of india. during their rule ,when paris and london were having mud houses AHMADABAD WAS MOST BEAUTIFULL CITY OF WORLD.
Re: Re: Mughals were not secular
by vinayak purohit on May 13, 2010 09:18 AM
such jano ashoka was victor but due to guilt HE CONVERTED TO BUDHHDISM SAME CHANDRA GUPTA MAURYA. tell me city built by any of them. past their life in wars&killing guided by chankya.when realised their evei acts.died as non vedic.
Re: Mughals were not secular
by such jano on May 13, 2010 12:58 AM
LOL ..ashoka was better than britishers and Mughals .I would rate Ashoka more higher..
mayb Chandragupta Maurya or Pulakeshi II where better or lets compare Raja raja Chola and Narasimhavarman I ..or
he supported buddhism and made sure the ugly brahminism did not rear its head
Re: sad but true
by KK on May 13, 2010 12:59 AM
My dear, hate and inferiority complex will not take one anywhere.Hard work and efforts, will to compete etc are needed instead to get a broader view of the world!Respect come automatically then , not by any caste!
Neutral Views: A hurt civilzationIf any body analyzes India history after year 1AD... any unbiased upright person who has grown above religion etc.... will understand which is most darkest era and golden eras of India history. Till 10-11 century India as a whole was largely flourishing, peaceful prosperous land. Gupta Dynasty definitely stands tall among all others and its the Golden Era of India. Other memorable rulers would be King Ashoka, Krishnadevaraya(Vijaya Nagar Empire recent history 16th century) etc...
Post 11 century(Mideval India) fell in to the clutches of Arabian originated rulers like Moghals and It has been full of blood. Violence, forced Conversion, killings, inhuman treatment of women, Injustice and Its marked as the Darkest era of Indian history.
(personal views: most celebrated Indian ruler Prithvi Raj chouhan probably turned a villain in Indian history(debatable...). He sacrificed the wellbeing of the great Indian civilization by his failure to safeguard motherland against foreign rulers inspite of being so brave himself and because of his Ugly lifestyle, liquor,socalled love/lust affair with Sanyogita, etc. If its true, probably he'll never be forgiven for his carelessness which resulted in the onslaught of Indian history by Ghori /Ghazni/Moghuls etc because of whom the great Indian spirit died forever...
Hope justice is made to every past sins. Hope the hurt civilzation raises like a phoenix...........
Re: Re: Neutral Views: A hurt civilzation
by JGN on May 13, 2010 12:44 AM
The Indians can unite also when need arises. We have driven out all invaders! Now only their pr0genies wallow in self-pity.
Re: Re: Re: Neutral Views: A hurt civilzation
by JGN on May 13, 2010 12:45 AM
Yes; the native kings were not able to defend themselves at that time but the Indians have defeated all invaders and driven them out in due course of time.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral Views: A hurt civilzation
by Me on May 13, 2010 01:04 AM
Did we JGN? We didnt. The Britishers were so drained of their resources after world war 2 that they could not hold on to any of their colonies. They gave up almost all their colnies in the next 1 or 15 years. And that happened to include us, thats all.
If were able to throw them out at the peak of their power, then we could have been proud of ourselves. We are not a fighting country JGN. Thats why inspite of our wealth and resources and huge population, barbarians from central asia, and small countries like the British were able to rule us for 1000 years.
The fighting spirit went out of our people after Asokha converted to Budhism. Then it wa sa reign of 'peace'. But our bad luck was that, other countries did not adopt Budhism.
The barbarian Afghans defeated the British in the 19th century. They defeated Soviet Union in the 20th century. Thats called fighting spirit.
Re: Neutral Views: A hurt civilzation
by Bharath Kumar on May 13, 2010 12:45 AM
Probably even if someone believes history is not written impartially, numerous temples/art centres like Somanath, Hampi, Halebid, Belur, Nalanda university stand amid the ruins created by these barbarians and stand as testimonials of the wicked past.
Re: Re: Re: Neutral Views: A hurt civilzation
by Bharath Kumar on May 13, 2010 12:57 AM
I guess no one destoryed Harappa. If I'm not wrong it was bcoz of natural reasons. Just like how Mathura sank in the sea...
The Indian asset, Buddha died a natural death...
And moreover bebate of this kind does take us any where... We just have accept the truth with positive attitue without any bias.....
Re: Re: why brhmns hate agriculture
by KK on May 13, 2010 12:38 AM
Bullshit! Youa re a fool and misguided doesnt mean evryone is!So easy to see through you!
Re: Re: Re: why brhmns hate agriculture
by KK on May 13, 2010 12:36 AM
But all dalits expect free ration! You will be where you were earlier and forever , thats the beauty of reservation. Makes everything easily available without struggling, right?
Re: Re: why brhmns hate agriculture
by Me on May 13, 2010 12:39 AM
Hey why do you people argue whether Brahmins are good or bad? They are not the reason for state of Indian society now.
Brahmins did not rule India as our raving friend 'such jano' is saying. The last 1000 years we were in the hands of outsiders who plundered us. So why is such jano getting all worked up against Brahmins? 'Kill Brahmins' means 'kill Indians', is it not? Anybody who wants to kill all of a particular religious/caste section of Indians are anti nationals.
I wonder if 'such bano' is the black sheep here, fooling us to believe his rage is against Brahmins ;-)
He is doing what the Britishers did - divide and rule.
Instead of us posting our thoughts against the terrorists and anti nationals, he has successfully made us fight among ourselves!!
Re: Re: Re: why brhmns hate agriculture
by KK on May 13, 2010 12:42 AM
such jano is kuch na jano shithead . so he desrves to be kicked ...until he gets things right!He had nobody to lead him on correct path , you know!
Re: Re: Re: Re: why brhmns hate agriculture
by JGN on May 13, 2010 12:47 AM
Nobody wants to ki11 muz1ims or Xtians but the Indian muz1ims and Xtians should not impose their d0gmas on other natives of our Country nor b1ackmail others in the name of re1igion.
