Akbar and Alexander

#122 Ranjit (Got into IIT without Quota)

Okay okay. Calm down. We all believe you. You got in fair and square, and not because of your "low" caste status.

: )

Re:ajeya
"That is why a newer version of Islam, with a new "prophet" would be very helpful (it's all bullshit anyway, so what's the difference? Idiots have their "religion", and everybody is happy)."

Shut up bihari.....what does a loser bihari like u know about religion?.....go milk your cows and steal money from someone....

Ajeya,

Why are you so ashamed of your Bihari background? Bihar is also part of India....I understand that it is traumatic to call Laloo Prasad Yadav as dad and Rabri Devi as mom....but so what?....reality is what it is.....garv se kaho ki tum bihari ho!!....keep the bihari flag flying high.....

Ajeya,

Why are you so ashamed of your Bihari background? Bihar is also part of India....I understand that it is traumatic to call Laloo Prasad Yadav as dad and Rabri Devi as mom....but so what?....reality is what it is.....garv se kaho ki tum bihari ho!!....keep the bihari flag flying high.....

Correction:

So some evidence of large-scale, violent extirpation of Buddhism by others throughout India (or across large swathes of the land) over a period of time would be helpful.

---------

There were no Hindus then, and presumably not just brahmins could have carried out such mass extirmination of Buddhists.

Baig Sahib, finally, it's good to see you here!

If all those things are true, then we need to acknowledge them. We know there are some Buddhist texts complaining of persecution by some kings, but in general, people appeared to have had little problem with the Buddha or his message - not in any violent way. It wasn't that different from what many well-respected philosophers had been saying in India anyway (not to take anything away from the breathtaking advaces he made). Also, Buddhism and other Indian traditions continued to live side by side in India (and in South East Asia). Even from a religious point of view that would be natural.

So some evidence of large-scale, violent extirpation of Buddhism by Hindus throughout India (or across large swathes of the land) over a period of time would be helpful.

muradbaig#110:

Zahe naseeb, aap ko is mehfil mein aana gawaara tau huwa!


I, too, am waiting to see reference to original documents. Amazing that all these "facts" came to light only after the Nehruvian mandate to "secular historians" to rewrite history which established hindu-muslim same-same equation. Amazing, too, that Nehru himself never discovered any such nuggets in his "discovery" of India.

But my skepticism is not just because these revelations were made during the rewrite of history, after all, we keep finding new facts of ancient history through archaelogical finds, etc. Instead, my skepticism is because of the complete lack of rancour or resentment between Hindus and Jains or Buddhists, whether living in India or abroad. This is quite unnatural: Europeans still remember the brutality of Chengiz Khan and Attila the Hun; Muslims still remember the massacres of crusaders; Hindus still are embedded with the memory of Ghazani after a thousand years of that event. But neither the Buddhists/Jains nor Hindus show any resentment towards each other; indeed, it was the Hindus -not the "seculars" - who made the biggest noise when the Bamiyaan Buddha statues were demolished.

BTW, I hope you will one day enlighten us with your analysis of the Indian auto sector - does Nano have a global future? Will the snob value of Jaguar ownership go down because of the ownership passing on to a third world conglomerate? Will Tatas succeed where Ford failed?

#106 Ranjit

[In the Indian army today, I dont believe there is any kind of segregation as far as food or living quarters are concerned. On the front, everyone does everything together. ]

You are exposing your "low" caste hangups for everyone to see. Why are you so ashamed to admit that you belong to a "low" caste? Because it is obvious to everyone watching.

#113 nasah

[God bless Akbar for siring a Hindu-Muslim mixed dynasty -- of half Moghul half Hindu kings of India -- that laid the foundation of multiculturism way back -- that started shaping up the current face of the Indian subcontinent –]

Maybe the long-dead families of all those innocent civilians that his armies butchered would not be able to forgive him, regardless of his change of heart later in life.

[... -- could have ascended the Delhi throne -- except for the support of his Elder Rajput king-maker uncle -- for the more aggressive -- more accomplished conquest hungry warrior - the funless ascetic Moghul -- the youngest Aurungzeb. ]

And this is why even the most liberal (therefore the most un-Islamic) of the Muslims are so dangerous - they could have an offspring who "interprets" the "holy" koran differently (i.e. just reads what is written, instead of "interpreting" it). Behold Osama Bin Laden, whose family is pro-west, and whose brother is a respected professor.

As long as the good book exists in its current form, and as long as mo's life-story continues to be propagated unedited, this threat to humanity will persist. That is why a newer version of Islam, with a new "prophet" would be very helpful (it's all bullshit anyway, so what's the difference? Idiots have their "religion", and everybody is happy).

#110 muradbaig

To begin with. I forgot to point this out:

[I have the presumption to desire to dye these black mustachios and beard in infidel blood through loyalty to your Majesty's person]

This shows a way of thinking codified in religion, and honored by Islamic society. That spilling the blood of the infidel is an honorable mission. This is why there is the "Allh ho akbar" cry in riots.

This is very different than Genghis Khan teaching his enemies a lesson by massacring civilians.


[Dont think we did not have non Hindu savagery in India.

There was a heady period of vigorous Brahmanical revivalism that gathered strength after the 7th century AD. Many local rulers, probably at the goading of their Brahmin ministers and priests, began to ruthlessly exterminate the previously dominant Buddhist and Jain faiths. No doubt the rich lands and treasures of their monasteries and temples also gave material incentives to this new religious fervour and many Buddhist and Jain stupas and monasteries were destroyed and Hindu temples established at their sites. Similar material motives had actuated religious persecutions in many lands including those by the nobles in England during the much more recent period of the Reformation.
Mihirikula, the Hun ruler was converted by Brahmins in 515 AD and soon unleashed a wave of violent destruction on Buddhist monasteries in Punjab and Kashmir. Kalhana’s Rajatarangani relates that crows and birds of prey would fly ahead of his armies in anticipation of the slaughter that lay ahead.
................................
................................
It is believed that Shankara introduced pilgrimages to these holy places in the Himalayas for the first time to prevent their relapse into Buddhist or animist ways that were earlier practised. As sufficient local Brahmins could not be found who were willing to preach in such remote places he imported Nambudri Brahmin priests from Kerala who, to this day, officiate at Badrinath, and Kedarnath.
Later as the mountain settlements grew other Brahmins like the Joshis and Pants from Maharashtra, Gairolas from Bengal and Negis from Gujarat were also invited to settle in the hills. A constant influx of Hindu pilgrims ensured the presence of many traders, priests and rulers who had a vested interest in sustaining the pilgrimages to these sacred spots. So conversions have had a long history in India and are not exclusive to Islam and Christianity. ]

All of this is useless, unless you can provide historical references.

SHOW ME THE HISTORICAL REFERNCES. Once you do that, we will inspect each case, one by one.

Killing civilians as a holy religious calling was NEVER a Hindu trait. It was ALWAYS a Muslim trait - in all their fights with "infidels", everywhere.

Akbar and Jodha is a heart warming film in the best tradition of Indian film making -- Akbar was my man – a king way ahead of his time.

Islam of Avicenna tamed the wahshi Mongols into the civilized Moghuls -- Hinduism transformed the Indian Moghuls to take them to new heights of tolerance and intellectualism in arts and architecture and in social spheres.

God bless Akbar for siring a Hindu-Muslim mixed dynasty -- of half Moghul half Hindu kings of India -- that laid the foundation of multiculturism way back -- that started shaping up the current face of the Indian subcontinent – a dynasty that could have lasted a little longer had the eldest Darus Shikoh -- the most learned and the most open minded and the most scholarly linguist (Sanskirt, Persian, Arabic) wine-loving heir -- could have ascended the Delhi throne -- except for the support of his Elder Rajput king-maker uncle -- for the more aggressive -- more accomplished conquest hungry warrior - the funless ascetic Moghul -- the youngest Aurungzeb.

Re: # 110: Dont weave fairy tales where are the proofs Doon boy?

Dont come up with Romilla Thapar JNU proofs. Today's Hinduism is more Jain and Budhist. Do not equate legions of exploitation and imperialism - that is what Abrahmic religions are - to Dharma. Ask your self if that is what our ancestor behaved then Shivaji, Rana Pratap, Guru Govind Singh, Ranajit Singh Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose or Bhagat Singh would have also behaved the similarly ie butchering civilians, destroying Taj Mahals, Red forts or British monuments and buildings in New Delhi, Kolkata or Mumbai. Compare that to what happened to Buddha statues in Afghanistan when Taliban is ruling it. If the Dharmic people do not do it today then most probably they did not do it before. We need not read books such as Akbar Nama or Aurangzeb Nama. Darabari Gandus such as you existed then who penned thos "his stories" for few crumbs.

Common man is realizing who finances naxalites, JNU gandus, Islami Jehadis and Christian missionaries. The source is only one. We know why Romila is in Univ of Chicago and why Indian Commies are now getting $60K per annum to do PhD in some social sciences.

DO NOT Chutya Banaw Public Ko!

Re: # 107
"Ans: Alexander was from a civilised place. He was out to conquer just to show his power. So, was Ashoka. They have not looted or destroyed existing civil structure"

Just ask the Zoroastrians, here:


The truth about alexander the "accursed"
By Maneck Bhujwalla

Maneck Bhujwalla writes:

I saw the TV documentary "In the Footsteps of Alexander ..." by Michael Wood, that was shown on public TV stations earlier this week. Here are my comments on what I learned from the documentary:

* Since childhood Alexander had nursed a feeling of bitterness and revenge against Persia for its defeat of Greek cities in earlier wars.

* Alexander had a psychological complex with respect to his father, King Phillip, and he wanted to prove himself to be a greater king than his father.

* Alexander's faith in the Greek gods whose messages he received through various oracles at different temple sites, gave him the sense of destiny that he was to be a world conqueror.

* Alexander was unpredictable in behavior, obstinate, and very lucky. Whereas he mostly massacred and tortured and destroyed his defeated enemies, occasionally like in the case of King Porus in India, he forgave and did not kill.

* Alexander proved himself to be a tyrant, by his various large scale massacres - 2,000 (Greek?) people crucified in Tyre, whole population on mountain top in Central Asia massacred even after they surrendered, all the Greek men, women, and children of a small town in Central Asia massacred when he found out that they belonged to the Greek people who had not supported him in Greece even though these people welcomed him, all the people of several towns in India massacred.

* Alexander was corrupted by the absolute power he gained through his conquests, and in denying his parenthood from King Phillip with whom he had conflict, he claimed that an oracle told him that he was the son of God.

* When his close friend tried to discourage his claims to be a God, and his dictatorial attitude that ran counter to democratic ideals of their Greek culture, and reminded him that his father was a greater ruler than him, Alexander kills his friend who had once saved his life. This shows his lack of loyalty, friendship, and brutality. Even the Greek historian has a hard time trying to defend this action.

* In the documentary, Michael Wood acknowledges that contrary to the misconception that the Persians were pagans, the inscriptions showed that the Persian kings worshipped Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom, and the Persian people believed in righteousness, honesty, and other ethical values.

* The people of many countries conquered and destroyed by Alexander, called Alexander as the devil, or the devil's creation, or Alexander the Accursed, not just Persians or Zoroastrians.

* In spite of Alexander's destruction of Persepolis and Zoroastrian religious books, etc., he did not succeed in permanently destroying the culture, tradition, or religion. The Parthians (from northeast Iran) overthrew the Greek rulers and later the Sassanian kings regained the original territory of the Persian empire of the Achaemanid kings.

* The original sacred fire in front of which Kind Darius (who was defeated by Alexander) prayed to God, was kept burning through the millenia, as claimed by the small Zoroastrian community that was interviewed by Michael Wood in Iran.

* And, the most important religious scriptures were saved because they were preserved by priests from generation to generation due to their practice of reciting them from memory. And even many of the lesser important scriptures were re-assembled during the Sassanian rule.

* If Alexander had not defeated the Persian king, Darius in the first battle at Sisson, it is likely that the countries that were victimized by his conquests in the Middle East and Asia, would not have suffered such destruction, killings, slavery, etc.

* If Alexander had not looted the treasury of Iran (which had more gold than all the gold at Fort Knox, in the United States), he would not have had the money to continue his military campaign further in Central Asia and India.

* Alexander's life of excess in wars, drinking, etc., finally caught up with him, and instead of living forever like a son of God, he dies a lone tyrant's death, without a true friend, at a very early age.

Dont think we did not have non Hindu savagery in India.

There was a heady period of vigorous Brahmanical revivalism that gathered strength after the 7th century AD. Many local rulers, probably at the goading of their Brahmin ministers and priests, began to ruthlessly exterminate the previously dominant Buddhist and Jain faiths. No doubt the rich lands and treasures of their monasteries and temples also gave material incentives to this new religious fervour and many Buddhist and Jain stupas and monasteries were destroyed and Hindu temples established at their sites. Similar material motives had actuated religious persecutions in many lands including those by the nobles in England during the much more recent period of the Reformation.
Mihirikula, the Hun ruler was converted by Brahmins in 515 AD and soon unleashed a wave of violent destruction on Buddhist monasteries in Punjab and Kashmir. Kalhana’s Rajatarangani relates that crows and birds of prey would fly ahead of his armies in anticipation of the slaughter that lay ahead.
Hiuen-Tsang describes the influence of a south Indian Hindu queen on her husband who ordered the execution of many thousand Buddhists including 8,000 in Madurai alone.
Vira Goggi Deva, a South Indian king, described himself as: “a fire to the Jain scriptures, a hunter of wild beasts in the form of the followers of Jina (Jains) and an adept at the demolition of Buddhist canon.”
Hired Brahmin killers tried to assassinate the Buddhist ruler Harshavardhana, who ruled in Kanauj from 606 to 647 AD. As a Buddhist, he was unwilling to take life and so banished 500 Brahmins involved in the conspiracy to a remote area South of the Vindhyas.
Graha Varman Maukhari, married to Harsha’s sister, was treacherously killed by Sasanka, king of Gauda (Bengal). He also proudly destroyed many stupas and cut down the sacred Bodhi tree at Gaya.
Chandradip, a Buddhist ruler of Kashmir, was killed by Brahmins in 722 AD. His successor Tarapida was killed two years later. The newly anointed Brahma-Kshastra rulers usurped power in the kingdoms of Sind and Kota.
The old tribal shrine at Jaganath Puri was usurped by Vaisnavas and still displays gory murals recording the beheading and massacre of many Buddhists.
The huge Buddhist complex at Nagarjunakonda was destroyed. According to Shankara Dig Vijaya, the newly anointed Brahma-Kshastra kings ordered every Kshatriya to kill every Buddhist young and old and to also kill those who did not kill the Buddhists.
A Jain temple at Huli in Karnataka had a statue of five Jinas (Jain heroes) that was re carved into a Shaivite temple with five lingas. Nepalese and Kumoani documents record that Buddhism had been the prevailing religion of the Himalayas until Shankaracharya deliberately destroyed them in the 8th century. There is no reliable evidence that Shankaracharya actually directed this persecution but what is likely is that grasping local rulers may have used his name to lend legitimacy to their destruction and looting. Many local hill rajas now invited Brahmins to their domains to get themselves elevated to the rank of Kshatriyas. And many were encouraged to attack Buddhist monasteries.
There are records stating that the followers of Buddha were ruthlessly persecuted, slain, exiled and forcibly converted. Though many converted rather than face death, humiliation or exile. It is reported that the attackers tested their faith by making them perform ‘Hinsa’, or the sacrifice of live animals, that was abhorrent to Buddhists and Jains. Many bhikshunis, or nuns, were forcibly married and the learned Grihasthas were forced to cut off the distinguishing knot of hair on top of their heads. It is on record that 84,000 Buddhist works were searched for and destroyed. The originally Buddhist Himalayan shrines at Badri and Kedar were then converted into shrines of Shiv and Vishnu.
It is believed that Shankara introduced pilgrimages to these holy places in the Himalayas for the first time to prevent their relapse into Buddhist or animist ways that were earlier practised. As sufficient local Brahmins could not be found who were willing to preach in such remote places he imported Nambudri Brahmin priests from Kerala who, to this day, officiate at Badrinath, and Kedarnath.
Later as the mountain settlements grew other Brahmins like the Joshis and Pants from Maharashtra, Gairolas from Bengal and Negis from Gujarat were also invited to settle in the hills. A constant influx of Hindu pilgrims ensured the presence of many traders, priests and rulers who had a vested interest in sustaining the pilgrimages to these sacred spots. So conversions have had a long history in India and are not exclusive to Islam and Christianity.

#108

Clarification about what I said:

If you think globally, you will act differently than if you are solely concerned with your own local affairs

#107
I feel Indians failed to defend India against invaders because Indians never had (and still do not have) a global perspective.

It is no suprise that the greatest Indian kings were Ashoka (who spread Buddhism all over the world) and Akbar (who, as is well known, had philosophers from all over the world in his kingdom).

A contemporary analogue are Infosys, Wipro, Tata, and other companies who consider the world to be their playground.

Europe was also divided into many small kingdoms. But Europeans were able to unite and repel the Muslims who invaded Europe precisely because they had a global perspective.

Today, does India have a global vision to offer the world? Are we propagating democracy? Whatever global impact India has is due to private entities (companies as above, Bollywood...). But Government of India does not have a global perspective nor does it offer a global vision of democracy and relative communal harmony.