It Was Reply Too your Questions As For True Indian Comment One Should not Need Some One Certificate that he is Patriot or Not It Automatically Judged When Time Actualy Arises
The British rule was (despite some positive aspects,)a great misfortune for millions of Indians. And the way Winson Churchill spoke about Gandhi rankles, till today.
I hold no sympathies towards congress.So spare me the spade.
I hold no sympathies towards congress.So spare me the spade.
But dont point towards a few muslim ruler and draw a blanket conclusion. How can you forget Akbar and Shah jahan.
Though not a Mughal but Tipu Sultan was also a muslim.But Tipu had many hindus in his ministry like the other Mughals.His army had successfully employed the iron cased cylinder rockets,that sent chills down the spine of Britishers.Had britishers not looted and plundered India....then to this date India would have had communal harmony.They divided India,they had sown the seed of communal violence before leaving India.
And did you by any chance forget Netaji Subhash Chandra bose's contribution in the formation of INA????
British made railways....for their own good.It facilitated the movement of their men/army easily across the length and breadth of India.
And about sati.....brace up for the surprises.
Mughal emperor Humayun was the first to try a royal fiat against sati.
Akbar was next to issue official general orders prohibiting sati and insisted that no woman could commit sati without the specific permission of his Chief police officers.The Chief police officers were instructed by him to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible.Pensions, gifts and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to persuade her from committing the act.
Tavernier writing in the reign of Shah Jahan,observed that widows with children were not allowed in any circumstances to burn and that in other cases, governors did not readily give permission, but could be bribed to do so.
And here comes the biggest surprise for you........
The emperor Aurangzeb was the strongest opponent of sati among the Mughals. In December 1663 he issued an "order that in all lands under Mughal control, never again should the officials allow a woman to be burnt".
I hold no sympathies towards congress.So spare me the spade.
But dont point towards a few muslim ruler and draw a blanket conclusion. How can you forget Akbar and Shah jahan.
Though not a Mughal but Tipu Sultan was also a muslim.But Tipu had many hindus in his ministry like the other Mughals.His army had successfully employed the iron cased cylinder rockets,that sent chills down the spine of Britishers.Had britishers not looted and plundered India....then to this date India would have had communal harmony.They divided India,they had sown the seed of communal violence before leaving India.
And did you by any chance forget Netaji Subhash Chandra bose's contribution in the formation of INA????
British made railways....for their own good.It facilitated the movement of their men/army easily across the length and breadth of India.
And about sati.....brace up for the surprises.
Mughal emperor Humayun was the first to try a royal fiat against sati.
Akbar was next to issue official general orders prohibiting sati and insisted that no woman could commit sati without the specific permission of his Chief police officers.The Chief police officers were instructed by him to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible.Pensions, gifts and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to persuade her from committing the act.
Tavernier writing in the reign of Shah Jahan,observed that widows with children were not allowed in any circumstances to burn and that in other cases, governors did not readily give permission, but could be bribed to do so.
And here comes the biggest surprise for you........
The emperor Aurangzeb was the strongest opponent of sati among the Mughals. In December 1663 he issued an "order that in all lands under Mughal control, never again should the officials allow a woman to be burnt".
Well its not me who went stupid all over the thread boy, so this is how it goes. If your sorry *** is too sensitive to take someone else criticism. Then kindly keep your stupidity to your self. I will tell u what I told that indian, mind your own house boy. As I was discussing a point with an indian. Which didnt concern you. And also what and how I follow my religion is non of your damn business. But unfortunately your liberal retards, like to bark all day long, forcing your shit down others throats. But when confronted then u have a problem. Now if u wan to carry on barking, kindly do so. I wouldnt bother my self with replying to your brain farts.
Aslan said:
Aslan said:
Great Peace of source Brother My Questions To All So called "Secular s" Please show If any Hindu Kings try too Massacre Other Communities.we Hindus never put an eye on others Land.
Madam Do char or auragzeb or ho jaate to vaise bhi sabhi hindu aurtoo ko toh sati hi hona padta nhi toh mughlo ki harem me toh line lagi rehti thi........... Anyway not supporting sati prtha here but plz dont defend auranzeb kind of goons like they were savior for hindu women...... Or should I give list of war bounty right from Bin Qasim to great great Akbar......?I hold no sympathies towards congress.So spare me the spade.
But dont point towards a few muslim ruler and draw a blanket conclusion. How can you forget Akbar and Shah jahan.
Though not a Mughal but Tipu Sultan was also a muslim.But Tipu had many hindus in his ministry like the other Mughals.His army had successfully employed the iron cased cylinder rockets,that sent chills down the spine of Britishers.Had britishers not looted and plundered India....then to this date India would have had communal harmony.They divided India,they had sown the seed of communal violence before leaving India.
And did you by any chance forget Netaji Subhash Chandra bose's contribution in the formation of INA????
British made railways....for their own good.It facilitated the movement of their men/army easily across the length and breadth of India.
And about sati.....brace up for the surprises.
Mughal emperor Humayun was the first to try a royal fiat against sati.
Akbar was next to issue official general orders prohibiting sati and insisted that no woman could commit sati without the specific permission of his Chief police officers.The Chief police officers were instructed by him to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible.Pensions, gifts and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to persuade her from committing the act.
Tavernier writing in the reign of Shah Jahan,observed that widows with children were not allowed in any circumstances to burn and that in other cases, governors did not readily give permission, but could be bribed to do so.
And here comes the biggest surprise for you........
The emperor Aurangzeb was the strongest opponent of sati among the Mughals. In December 1663 he issued an "order that in all lands under Mughal control, never again should the officials allow a woman to be burnt".
We are in the same house u said, and its ur job u said. Now tell me "Dear Sir" How did I portray my religion in a bad manner. Please kindly, point it out for me. Or stopping the ones who make fun of our religion is bad too. Or are u just too much an apologetic, to even see whats going on. Stop with the mentality of oh please dont argue with them, we are already considered bad. Please!
And by that token indians should worry about their own house, and not to bother with ours.
