China Radio's Tamil station to launch FM channel in India

[Shinigami]

From where did u pick up this map? SL was never a part of chola empire, only section of SL did. The cholas couldnt even touch the southern side of SL

 

[Saradiel]

That attitude is precisely what makes you persecute all the ethnic minorities in Sri Lanka.

I didnt ask u to give more maps i ask u from where u picked it?
Many TN ppl even academics say SL was in full control of Cholas which is an utter lie.
Even in 2 n 3 rd pics it shows chola didnt conquer whole of Lanka, though in correct in geographical area. These 2 pics themselves are contradictory to the other pics

The only race who could conquer whole of SL were the British and that too was in a deceptive method. Otherwise British forces were defeated by the Sinhalese guerilla forces.

 

[Shinigami]

I didnt ask u to give more maps i ask u from where u picked it?
Many TN ppl even academics say SL was in full control of Cholas which is an utter lie.
Even in 2 n 3 rd pics it shows chola didnt conquer whole of Lanka, though in correct in geographical area.

search and find for yourself. dont expect spoonfeeding from me at every turn.

believe what you want. wont change history

 

[Saradiel]

search and find for yourself. dont expect spoonfeeding from me at every turn.

believe what you want. wont change history

So that means u cant find any reliable source to prove ur point! Listen kid, when u bring out somethings it is upto u to prove it. I know my history and I can confidently say SL was never wholey conqured by Cholas. They couldnt even touch the southern part of it. U can create false stories and engage in mental masterbation but still it wont change the facts.

 

[Shinigami]

So that means u cant find any reliable source to prove ur point! Listen kid, when u bring out somethings it is upto u to prove it. I know my history and I can confidently say SL was never wholey conqured by Cholas. They couldnt even touch the southern part of it. U can create false stories and engage in mental masterbation but still it wont change the facts.

 

[INDIC]

you who know nuts about Hindooism, trying to undermine the Hindoo epic Mahabharata, the "great history of Bharat aka India" by denying my wiki links , heres the valid link for fools

The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva: Section 12

But you claimed more than this, prove those claims of yours. Also provide me the exact verse from Mahabharat.

 

[Saradiel]

K get ur head out and show me the proof.......According to the recorded history of SL, SL was never conquered wholey.

Forget it, if what u say is true, why do the 2nd and 3rd maps that YOU gave contradict what you say???

 

[Kavin]

 

[Skyline]

funny pics!

Lanka lost the full control in 1815 only, that was by British. It also by an agreement with them.
It was so difficult to take control of Lanka becoz of the central highlands of Lanka.

 

[manlion]

But you claimed more than this, prove those claims of yours. Also provide me the exact verse from Mahabharat.

who are you ? some Hindoo emperor ? I have no time to waste on fools , btw the Mahabharata is your source of authority not mine. To me its Hindoo mumbo jumbo written in 5 AD which you pass off as 5000 BC ..

 

[manlion]

K get ur head out and show me the proof.......According to the recorded history of SL, SL was never conquered wholey.

Forget it, if what u say is true, why do the 2nd and 3rd maps that YOU gave contradict what you say???

If you refuse to acknowledge outside source then refer to your own Buddshit myth Mahavamsa which speaks of Chola invasion, destruction and rule of Lanka. BTW you were only able to take on the Cholas due to Pandya alliance through marriage.

The Mahavamsa saya that the first revolt against Chola rule occurred twelve years after the defeat of Mahinda V and this revolt was organised by Kassapa his son. For some time Kassapa succeeded in resisting the Cholas.

Then he was obliged to retreat to the south*eastern part of the island known as Rohana. He ruled from there under the title Vikramabahu. This Vikramabahu passed away after ruling for twelve years. If this account found in the Mahavamsa if true, the subjection of the whole of Ceylon to Chola rule was substantial only for a decade or so and that too in the fag end of Rajendra's reign.

The Ceylonese resistance to the Cholas became very acute in the days of Rajadhiraja I. Vikramabahu was succeeded in Ceylon by one Mahalanakitti who died fighting the Cholas. He had a son who fled from Ceylon fearing a Chola attack but later returned only to be killed. The Mahavamsa speaks of one Vikramapandu who is the same as the Vikrama Pandya of the Chola inscriptions.

This Pandya was connected with the Ceylonese royal family by marriage. Nilakanta Sastri is of the opinion that Vikrama Pandya was born of a Sinhalese father and a Pandya mother. This Pandya also fell a victim of Chola aggression; the aggressor appropriated the wife and daughter of the fallen Pandya. We hear of two kings Virasalamegam and Srivallabamadanaraja who are however not to be found in the Ceylonese accounts. The sister, mother and wife of the former were very badly treated by the Cholas. He himself fell when Rajendra II invaded Ceylon.

http://http://www.preservearticles.com/2011091913591/what-was-the-relation-between-the-cholas-and-ceylon.html

 

[Gibbs]

I didnt ask u to give more maps i ask u from where u picked it?
Many TN ppl even academics say SL was in full control of Cholas which is an utter lie.
Even in 2 n 3 rd pics it shows chola didnt conquer whole of Lanka, though in correct in geographical area. These 2 pics themselves are contradictory to the other pics

The only race who could conquer whole of SL were the British and that too was in a deceptive method. Otherwise British forces were defeated by the Sinhalese guerilla forces.

Prolly from www.madrasis'sarefullofshit.com or www.delutionsofgranduerintoiletnadu.net.. Hence his reluctance to post the links..

 

[baajey]

It seems, for many Indians, at least in this forum, they always rely on others' praise to satisfy their ego. Is that because they don't have pride for things from their own country? It is sad for an old civilization.

The name our country is 中国. We have our own language. It doesn't matter what foreigners call us. We call USA 美国, can I say we give USA their country name? No. They have their own name USA.

But India is somewhat different from others. Their language, country and name were actually all given by others. BTW the food - rice - was given by China.

Additionally, Buddha was from Nepal. Anyway, IMO, Buddhism is a backwards religion. It needs modernization to survive.

And we have Taoism. IMO, the best religion for social development. As AViet, I hope you know something about it. It gave SK the flag as shown in your profile. Many Taoism theories are actually very close to modern sciences. Most importantly, in Taoism, you can NOT simply believe in your gods to gain immortal life, instead you must work hard to exercise your body and spirit. This is the reason it is not that popular. After all, most people are just lazy losers.

yes chinese ancestors descended from planet krypton.
after they were termed as too scientific, too modern , too strong n too ambitious the high council of krypton banished them to earth. not to mention their higher IQs

 

[INDIC]

who are you ? some Hindoo emperor ? I have no time to waste on fools , btw the Mahabharata is your source of authority not mine. To me its Hindoo mumbo jumbo written in 5 AD which you pass off as 5000 BC ..

I never claimed Mahabharat from 5000BC. I saw you making lots and lots of fake claims and every time you couldn't provide any authentic proof.

 

[manlion]

I never claimed Mahabharat from 5000BC. I saw you making lots and lots of fake claims and every time you couldn't provide any authentic proof.

I have given you the Mahabharata reference , its for you to follow up with hard copy for the sanskrit text and not keep bugging me for evidence when you have none to support your lies i.e existence of Bharat from 5000 BC

My point is in Mahabharat there were separate kingdoms and tribes and the whole land mass was not united under 1 ruler. My assertions is still valid , i.e there was no country called India, when the Cholas had cultural and political links with China and Dravidistan was never under Indian rule until the Brits colonialisation of Hindoostan

Dravida, Chola , Pandyas are being mentioned more than 40 times in the Mahabharat and I gave you 1 link Karna Parva book 8 for verification.

Online Mahabharat (English version) If you have any issues take it up with Ganguli the translator and not with me , good luck

The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva (refer PDF file page 12)

. When that host was being thus struck and slain by heroic warriors the Parthas, headed by Vrikodara, advanced against us. They consisted of Dhrishtadyumna and Shikhandi and the five sons of Draupadi and the Prabhadrakas, and Satyaki and Chekitana with the Dravida forces, the Pandyas, the Cholas, and the Keralas, surrounded by a mighty array, all possessed of broad chests, long arms, tall statures, and large eyes.

source Mahabharata - by Ganguli in MS Word