Mahmud of Ghazni vs Rajendra Chola

[Kabira]

And what about Kushans successors of Kanishka who ruled you from Peshawar

They were vassals of Samudragupta sending their women folk and tribute as his Vassals.

View attachment 222050

No offence but Kushan maybe bhudist but racially he was not Indian, they came from western China. Your gupta empire map is 100% wrong, they never crossed Satluj river so forget about ruling Pakistan. At that time Kushans were rulers of Indus valley. Only Mauryas are believed to have ruled Pakistan, but there is some doubts about their racial origins. Maurya was groomed by Pakistani Chanakya. Maurya was also in Pakistan at the time of Alexander invasion. Having capital in Bihar does not make him Indian.

The rulers and soldiers of the Ghaznavid Kingdom were Turkic slave soldiers who were also called as
Mamluks. Their history dates back to the Arab invasion of Central Asia. The Arabs captured and
enslaved the Turks and made them to loyal slave soldiers. Later these Turkic soldiers revolted
and established their own Kingdom.

The Chola Emperors were true Indians who are of noble descent. All the medieval Chola Emperors
traced their genealogy back to famous ancient Chola Kings. Unlike the Turkic Slave rulers
the Chola Emperors had royal blood.

Chola emperos claimed ancient Rig Vedic ancestry. Basically they were decendents of barbaric aryan invaders which from your pov make them noble. lol

 

[Jaanbaz]

I thought that all Pakistanis support Mahmud Ghazni.

I'm trying to be neutral here. Besides Mahmud Ghazni wasn't my chacha that I would like him instantly.

 

[Shark2]

No offence but Kushan maybe bhudist but racially he was not Indian. Your gupta empire map is 100% wrong, they never crossed Satluj river so forget about ruling Pakistan. At that time Kushans were rulers of Indus valley. Only Mauryas are believed to have ruled Pakistan, but there is some doubts about their racial origins. Maurya was groomed by Pakistani Chanakya. Maurya was also in Pakistan at the time of Alexander invasion. Having capital in Bihar does not make him Indian.



Chola emperos claimed ancient Rig Vedic ancestry. Basically they were decendents of barbaric aryan invaders which from your pov make them noble. lol

Dont make up stories.
The Maurya Empire was an eastern Indian Dynasty as the Emperors of the Maurya Dynasty used Prakrit
as a court language which was also the spoken language of eastern and central India at that time.
And the Chola Emperors claimed ancestry from the ancient Chola King Karikala Chola who ruled in the
1st century CE and they never claimed a so called Vedic ancestry.

 

[Kabira]

Dont make up stories.
The Maurya Empire was an eastern Indian Dynasty as the Emperors of the Maurya Dynasty used Prakrit
as a court language which was also the spoken language of eastern and central India at that time.
And the Chola Emperors claimed ancestry from the ancient Chola King Karikala Chola who ruled in the
1st century CE and they never claimed a so called Vedic ancestry.

Capital was in east India, I was talking about doubts people have on Maurya being Indian. We all know Chanakya was Pakistani and he was one responsible for Maurya empire. Prakrit is aryan language also spoken in Gandhara region and in India where ever aryan ruled.

 

[Shark2]

Capital was in east India, I was talking about doubts people have on Maurya being Indian. We all know Chanakya was Pakistani and he was one responsible for Maurya empire. Prakrit is aryan language also spoken in Gandhara region and in India where ever aryan ruled.

Not really.
Almost all the inscriptions and records in Prakrit were made by eastern Indian Dynasties like the
Maurya Dynasty, Gupta Dynasty and by Emperor Kharavela of Odisha during ancient period
In Pakistan most of the records are in foreign languages like Greek and Persian.

 

[Kabira]

Not really.
Almost all the inscriptions and records in Prakrit were made by eastern Indian Dynasties like the
Maurya Dynasty, Gupta Dynasty and by Emperor Kharavela of Odisha during ancient period
In Pakistan most of the records are in foreign languages like Greek and Persian.

aryan language is not native to India or east India. Your obsession with claiming barbaric foreigners aryans is pathetic. Even chola mundas claimed aryan origin. As far as record go, there are hundreds of thousands of sanskrit manuscripts in Pakistan.

 

[Shark2]

Again dont make up stories.
The earliest written records in Prakrit and Sanskrit were only found in what is modern India.

 

[bsruzm]

Well, I said that i don't know how right such comparison is and still but seems most Indians posting here in this thread need some serious education for they sound primitive based on their bullsh*t and hate rather than the facts, that is perhaps why most of you here have negative ratings.

 

[Kabira]

Again dont make up stories.
The earliest written records in Prakrit and Sanskrit were only found in what is modern India.

Stop claiming barbaric aryan invader languages will you? Pathetic! And what they found in Gandhara then? So called gandhari language is Prakrit.

 

[Shark2]

Stop claiming barbaric aryan invader languages will you? Pathetic! And what they found in Gandhara then? So called gandhari language is Prakrit.

This is again wrong. Gandhari Prakrit records were made centuries after the Prakrit records of the eastern
Indian Maurya Dynasty or even the records of Kharavela of Odisha.
The eastern Indian Maurya Dynasty conquered what is modern Pakistan and parts of
Afghanistan and spread their civilization there. Thats why the oldest Prakrit records
were made in eastern India. Gandhari Prakrit is merely a copy of eastern Indian Prakrit.
And you people should stop claiming barbaric Arab and Turkic invaders like Bin Qasim
or Mahmud Ghazni.

 

[Kabira]

This is again wrong. Gandhari Prakrit records were made centuries after the Prakrit records of the eastern
Indian Maurya Dynasty or even the records of Kharavela of Odisha.
The eastern Indian Maurya Dynasty conquered what is modern Pakistan and parts of
Afghanistan and spread their civilization there. Thats why the oldest Prakrit records
were made in eastern India. Gandhari Prakrit is merely a copy of eastern Indian Prakrit.
And you people should stop claiming barbaric Arab and Turkic invaders like Bin Qasim
or Mahmud Ghazni.

You are again claiming barbaric aryan invaders, Indians have no self respect? shamefull

 

[Ajai Ghale]

No offence but Kushan maybe bhudist but racially he was not Indian, they came from western China. Your gupta empire map is 100% wrong, they never crossed Satluj river so forget about ruling Pakistan. At that time Kushans were rulers of Indus valley. Only Mauryas are believed to have ruled Pakistan, but there is some doubts about their racial origins. Maurya was groomed by Pakistani Chanakya. Maurya was also in Pakistan at the time of Alexander invasion. Having capital in Bihar does not make him Indian.



Chola emperos claimed ancient Rig Vedic ancestry. Basically they were decendents of barbaric aryan invaders which from your pov make them noble. lol

You are wrong again like you when you mentioned Sikhs were not part of British army before 1857.

But for the sake of our discussion i shall stick to the kushan and their relation with Royal Gupta's.

Firstly practice a composite religion not just Buddhism thus we have a kushan ruler by the name of Vasudeva a Hindu God.

Secondly the successor of kaniska was vassals of Samudragupta as noted Historian VA Smith corroborated.

In his inscription he mentioned a ruler "Devanam putra shahanshanushai" as his vassals which clearly relates to later kushan.

 

[Kabira]

You are wrong again like you when you mentioned Sikhs were not part of British army before 1857.

But for the sake of our discussion i shall stick to the kushan and their relation with Royal Gupta's.

Firstly practice a composite religion not just Buddhism thus we have a kushan ruler by the name of Vasudeva a Hindu God.

Secondly the successor of kaniska was vassals of Samudragupta as noted Historian VA Smith corroborated.

In his inscription he mentioned a ruler "Devanam putra shahanshanushai" as his vassals which clearly relates to later kushan.

Its true, sikhs in Pakistan were not part of british empire before 1857. I have sources to backup my claim. You said few Indian sikhs joined british empire which different thing. Kushans came from western china, they were as much Indians as Ghaznavi. The only difference being religion which is not native to India either. lol

Pathetic shamefull Indians claiming aryans and other barbaric foreigners as their own.

 

[Shark2]

You are again claiming barbaric aryan invaders, Indians have no self respect? shamefull

At least we do not celebrate barbaric Arab and Turkic invaders, who slaughtered the ancestors
of Pakistanis, like heroes.
You guys even made a movie about Bin Qasim who invaded Pakistan in the 8th century
and slaughtered your ancestors.

 

[Kabira]

At least we do not celebrate barbaric Arab and Turkic invaders, who slaughtered the ancestors
of Pakistanis, like heroes.
You guys even made a movie about Bin Qasim who invaded Pakistan in the 8th century
and slaughtered your ancestors.

And what did aryans did to you? Much worst, they made you slaves for eternity.