The real reason behind the success of tyrants like Aurangzeb is the north indian people who shamelessly gave up the will to fight and meekly became Moghal's slaves.
When Shivaji Maharaj with limited resources could withstand the might of Moghals so easily why did all those martial races in Punjab, Haryana, UttarPradesh display such a cowardice and became slaves? Rajputs did fight for a while before giving up. If Moghals destroyed cultural centers of North India.. no one other than North Indians are to be blamed for not defending their culture.
RE:Real reason behind Aurangzeb
by chaitanya kumar on Feb 18, 2007 04:02 AM Permalink
Are you from South India? I am southie too. if so, you have any clue what the people in North India went through and protecting your ways in the process? People there have put a hard fight but the Islamic barbaric spirit was a shocking spirit for those times. Hindus were isolating themselves and never expected an aggressive political ideology to come crossing Indus and rape us... and the aggressive North Indian spirit you see now has many things to do with the subjugations during Islamic rule. You have no clue dude. You got the Telugu, Tamil, Kannad, Malayalam mostly untainted, the temple structures very less destroyed than north, and they had to change their language where Arab words and persian words were included into the script and the script went through phases. You seem to have a regional mindset. You are worse than a Muslim. India was invaded, divided and haunted because of this regional mindset. Now same thing seems to repeat itself.
RE:RE:Real reason behind Aurangzeb
by Governor General on Feb 18, 2007 04:48 AM Permalink
You are exactly saying what I thought you would say. What aggressive spirit are you talking about?
For your information .. North Indians never protected SouthIndia from being plundered. Most of the moghal armies that plundered rest of India was made of North Indians.
If SouthIndian temples stand today that's because of our spirit to defend them and resist foreign invasion.
What north Indians did was ..
1. Invite alien muslim invader to attack his neighbouring kingdom
2. Command Muslim armies against his own brotherly kingdoms (Who commanded Akbar's armies? again?..)
3. Fall one over another to pay tributaries to the Sultans of Delhi...
This attitude was first demonstrated by the north Indians when Ambi sided with Alexander and helped him to fight Porus. That's your history deal with it..
RE:RE:RE:Real reason behind Aurangzeb
by chaitanya kumar on Feb 18, 2007 05:23 AM Permalink
you must be a sick Tamilian who believes in "dravidian supremacist" theory. See, you made me say it now. You made me a racist and you seem to want it that way only. I come from Andhra. The thing is, the regional spirit in the south was isolated from what was happening at the peripharals of Indus and the issues people had to deal there. They had to trade with foreigners as southies had to do it with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia of those times. Islam as a political ideology came from Arab deserts and it was very well motivated and driven by the armies to convert tribes and destroy the ancient cultures and blend them into the rigid fold to make way for Allah worship. Hindus never expected it and they weren't prepared for a Mohammed and his fundametal thoughts that would inspire many to invade and plunder India and stay there to implement their thought. Yes, South India under Vijayanagara Empire gave a good defence and it's main constitution was to protect the Hindu heritage which it did for more than 300 years against sultanates of the north. Marathas at one point brought the Mughals to their knees and conquered most of India but the dynasty came to be weak later and the empire disintegrated. And you must know that most of North West India was under Buddhist influence when the invasion started. So effectively, it's the Rajputs who gave some oppositions and others followed. True, they might have joined the ranks of armies of invaders later as did many Nayaks and many south indians under Tipu Sultan, Nizam, Bahmani sultanate. And the south Indians fell for tributaries too. Otherwise people wouldn't have stayed in Mysore and Hyderabad for that long until independence. You have a way of looking at many Indians as the other. Mistakes are done then by many and Tamil Nadu has seen the least Islamic rule of all. Others took the the brunt. About Ambi siding with someone, well for all i know most of these guys must be converts by now. If any of that school are left, where are they? Who are they? are you one of them? or the Marxist brigade? the "Secular" brigade"? it's definetely not the Hindutva brigade. Why do people there hate Pakistan more than southies? You still want to be reminded of who commanded Akbar's army against a brother, instead of making ammends now. That's very low life.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Real reason behind Aurangzeb
by Governor General on Feb 18, 2007 06:33 AM Permalink
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Your post has two points.
1. You are plainly stating what happened.
2. You are abusing me.
There is no analysis in your post.
I'll ignore your abuse and answer your points.
Did you strive to think why Tamil Nadu was least affected by Muslims? Is it because NorthIndian kings gave their lives saving Tamil state? What do you mean by others took the brunt?
Mysore under Tipu Sultan was a British period occurance. The dynamics of a Indian foot soldier (Hyder Ali) taking over a Kingdom was different from a surrender of an existing kingdom at the sound of march of Alien kings.
Bahmini states were never allowed to stabilize in Deccan because of various resistance provided by SouthIndians (Vijayanagar is a glorious example). That's what was lacking in North India. One Turk general comes and then the entire North India falls at his feet. It gets followed by an Afghan general..Punjab to Bengal falls to his feet. That's what I am commenting here.
Does stating these facts makes me a Communist? Don't show your immaturity. I am an entrepreneur surviving solely 'coz of Capital markets and open economy.
I don't belong to any brigades.. I apply my mind.
The manner in which you speak.. looks like you are a person brainwashed by some ideology.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Real reason behind Aurangzeb
by chaitanya kumar on Feb 18, 2007 07:46 AM Permalink
Bahmani sultanata has wrought a lot destruction in deccan and you can refer the sources for it.. It's as worse as millions raped, temples destroyed and many other things. You are a sick guy man, General. My abuse is nothing. Your mindset is the problem. You want to look at many Indians of your own religion as the other. I never called you a communist. I called you a tamil nationalist and dravidian supremacist which you most probably are. India gives two hoots about what a guy from Tamil Nadu has to say about his state, if he has only that to say in good manner. Leave out rest of south india from your dravidian mess you created there. It's a fallacy, the theory and ideology. Your point of view is cornered and you reveal yourself in each of your posts. The dividing mindset. Hyder Ali, the "foot soldier", when did he become an Indian? Is Babur and Ghazni Indian too? What about Bin Qasim? You are funny when you say vijanagara as the only glorious example, because it has the least to do with Tamil people. Now you are making me talking in regional level. People like you, this where they drag others. The vijayanagara was founded and based to protect the telugu and kannad culture in whose rule they have seen maximum cultural evolution. It has least to do with Tamil. Anyway, the point is, it is not the only one. There were the Marathas who occupied most of India at one point. Vijayanagara never did that. And as i said before, most of North West India in Sindh and surrounding region was under Buddhist influence during invasion, and buddhists don't like wars so much. I hope you get the point there. What is your problem man? why do you see people from other parts of India as if they failed miserably and their History is for them to blame, when your ancestor's ass was singing a song peaceful while these guys were getting their nerves and jaws broken, a tumultous cultural shift forced on them, which they are still dealing with the trauma of it. What is your problem in understanding fellow Indians and their issues? Why do you have to see it through blinkered vision of us vs. them. Tipu Sultan and his History you never read i guess. He did a lot worse with Hindus in Kerala which btw i came to know from a friend who is a Tamilians and a Hindu patriot. He killed hundreds of thousands of children there. The stories are gory. It's glaring and don't be indifferent, so learn it. People in places have gone through hell. Marxist bred school History will not teach it and in anycase, these facts are being corrected. Buddhism has seen it's greatest physical destruction due to Islamic invasion starting from Nalanda Massacre in 1199 where 20,000 nuns were killed in a monastry. Hinduism has seen the largest genocide ever witnessed by mankind, mainly in north west india during this period of invasions and rule. New facts will come to light.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Real reason behind Aurangzeb
by Governor General on Feb 18, 2007 01:44 PM Permalink
chaitanya kumar,
I know that Vijayanagar empire's ruling clans were Telugus/Kannadigas. But following are well known facts.
Vijayanagara architecture was a combination of the Chalukya, Hoysala, Pandya and Chola styles.
Wikipedia says that though much of the Tamil literature from this period came from Tamil speaking regions ruled by the feudatory Pandya who gave particular attention on the cultivation of Tamil literature, some poets were patronised by the Vijayanagara kings. It further goes on to say that Vijayanagara was originally of the Karnataka country and it drew its inspirations from the Hoysala Empire and the Gangas of the Karnataka and the Chola and Pandya of the Tamil country. But it is chiefly remarkable in raising above all regionalism and in creating the all India nationalism of to-day in all of its spheres of activities.
You say "It has least to do with Tamil"... You are twisting history for your needs.
You assumed that I am a Dravidian sympathiser and go on to accuse that it's a fallacy. I don't know how much you know about Dravidian movement but if you are from Andhra and still speak Telugu in your home then you have to thank Dravidian movement for that. If it was not there you would most probably speaking Hindi in your home. Anti caste activities of Dravidian movement was another major reason why upper caste discrimination was so easily defeated in Tamil Nadu. From your talks I can understand that you know nothing about the history of Dravidian movement but don't act smart we tamils want none of your participation in any of our political activities. Btw I am NOT a Dravidian movement follower. Its political activities are far from perfect but still it deserves far better respect than your ignorant abuses.
Again don't repeat historical events I too have read them. Yes I very well know the atrocities of Tipu Sultan. I know that he is a tyrant. What's your point? You seem to be confused and not answering my points. Don't jump from one issue to another. Answer me why didn't North Indians fight Muslims.. Why did they get burned or became willing slaves.. the same North Indians who today call themselves as Jats the warriors, Rajputs the greats.. Punjabis the martial race etc etc.. The same people fell one over another to avoid fighting Muslim invaders. Answer me that.
Btw I don't think that common buddhist man is a non-violent to the level of getting killed without a fight. Past and present history of Buddist countries show contrary facts.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Real reason behind Aurangzeb
by chaitanya kumar on Feb 18, 2007 03:29 PM Permalink
Dravidian movement had it's purpose in eradicating few evils, but the theory was a fallacy dude. It was never proven the dravidians are the ones who were original settlers. And the term Aryan in Indian context if foregone conclusion, where people of all colour have been living here for a long time time. You must understand that brits had their interests in seeing the aryan-dravidian myth succeed in India. It failed miserably. You tamilians are the only guys who give so much weight to that theory. You must read few things about Hindutva and Hindu nationalism as you seem to be a Hindu too. You may not want to come out of your tamilian web, but at least understand that your culture has elements from roots of other similar culture elsewhere in India. Shankara, The Advaita Vedanta(the last and most important school of vedanta) guru, was a Malayali, and there were many other south indians of such nature who made bonds with people from kashmir to kanyakumari. We are one people. Savarkar was a staunch hindu nationalist and so was Golwalkar. Read some books about Hindutva, it's about pan-indian nationalism. There are many RSS shakhas in Tamil Nadu and these guys recently fought with DMK govt. to make sure temple funds in your state are not diverted for funding the activities of other religions. They are doing many other things in Tamil Nadu. RSS is the largest volunteer movement in the world. They don't follow untouchability in their shakhas and they discourage other Indians to not to do it. Infact most inter-caste marriages in India are found among Hindu right wing groups. They are working now with tribals and women to eradicate many social evils. They are here to protect your culture also dude. Tamil will not be destroyed and Telugu wouldn't be either. They don't have issues with any of us Hindus. It's the anti-national thoughts of others that hinders the national spirit is what bothers them. India is very diverse and we know we need a common identity, which is very binding in nature to make sure the nation doesn't disintegrate like it did many times in past. So Hindutva is something you can take your time and learn about and be a tamil hardcore if you want. Both can be done at same time.
You should read more History and credible sources. In Wikipedia, anyone can write anything and Indian history is not well scrutinised there many people as say American History, were thousands of Americans participate in the site and write their History with enthusiasm there through extensive research. So what you say about Vijayanagara might not be entirely true. You should also understand that, there are various controversies in the way vijayanagara's main motives go. But the Hindu heritage protection is defientely what drived them, but there are other controversies about Kannad, Telugu and others claiming the heritage of the empire as their own. We south indian people are simple minded and still fight between eachother. Others have the'r problems too. But think what we do if we guys were sitting near Indus when the invaders came. It can only be a guess and nothing more than that.
governor who have a valid point when you doubt the martial spirit of the people in northern india. Yes, they must be studied in detail why the people gave up without a great fight. The point is, India was largely divided by then. Smaller kingdoms everywhere, even in south and they lost the uniting spirit when the invaders came marching.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Real reason behind Aurangzeb
by Perv Sharma on Mar 03, 2007 06:46 AM Permalink
Governor
Have you read Sikh / Muslim history
It's clear that the kashmir hindus came to seek help from Sikh gurus due to the torture and conversion of them at the islamic kings. The gurus as non-violent approach asked the kings to allow every citizen to follow his own faith which was rejected and hence they took to Arms. That's how the Sikhs as a military sect was born and they fought the islamic unjust rule. It's one big factor why hindus managed to survive whereas 90% population of Kashmir was converted.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Real reason behind Aurangzeb
by Governor General on Feb 18, 2007 09:23 AM Permalink
Srinivas,
You are a big opinionated person with no brains. I don't know if you understood what I am saying. Your meaningless anger is blinding you from analyzing what I am saying.
"you seem to be a sick guy who is ill informed" - Why do you think you are better informed?
"I believe you are not fit to comment on this topic" - You and your beliefs... I care for facts not your beliefs.
"you should be either a sick fanatic or a missionary" - You are an immature person that thinks anyone that differs from your point of view as fanatic.. and your ideology makes u think that I am a missionary..
You make ur opinions and start believing that. That makes u a mentally retarded person and..yeah in your language a sick person. I have now said.. why I think you are retard.
