The best ruler of the Indian Subcontinent - Aurangzeb Alamgir

[Andhadhun]

Maybe so, but before the British there were Muslims & Before them were Rajput's another foreign invader group like Gujjaras, Kushans etc.

All in all where did the local Hindu benefit and & how was he the master of his destiny.

Yes British were very bad, they didn't allow wives to be burnt with bodies if husbands, they gave you modern education, industry & railway.

They were so bad, that to this day every Indian dreams of being in Britain.

No such thing as a true or better Hindu but hundreds of castes are just for the fun of it, wow.

Rajputs were not invaders. Neither were Gujjar foreign. Their name comes from sanskrit Gurjar.

There is no evidence of any discrimination against Hindus in any of these rulers time period.

Many Indians go to UK, Canada, US or Australia too. So what ?

 

[Behram Khilji]

I actually think that British slowed down the process of reversion to the basics of Hinduism. Though speculation, I think that process would have been far faster under Marathas.

To contextualize, since independence, the reduction of caste consciousness and discrimination has been slow. Though political parties have, of course, done as much as possible to fan differences, I'd venture it really only picked up post-2000s with the emergence of new industries (Indians from all over working together) and Indians travelling a lot within the country (for education and jobs). This reduction of physical and mental distances has led to a large number of inter-caste marriages.

British capitalised on the marhattas, why because marhattas fate was sealed by a man called Ahmed Shah Abdali.

It's good to dream.

 

[W.11]

British capitalised on the marhattas, why because marhattas fate was sealed by a man called Ahmed Shah Abdali.

It's good to dream.

marathas were a confederacy not a central rule like mughal, the marathas were also pitched against other indian kingdoms, this made indian defense weak, so the british were able to conquer weaker areas before they expanded to other areas, frequently marathas suported british against other native indian rule, indians were also the weakest before british conquest, which happens with every other nation in its history.

regards

 

[Andhadhun]

your abhorance for your own fellow indians, declaring them as common men and the abhorance for the buddhist/non hindu brahmanical literature just proves my point, majority of indian literary tradition was based on prakrits, which were the courtly languages and the languages where most secular indian works were composed in, a tradition which is now almost extinct except few examples, thats one of the reasons why all the history of india is lost beccause only brahmanical works got preserved and the secular works didn't.

Hegemony of sanskrit came later with hegemony of brahmins when it replaces prakrits of the earlier periods.

regards

I do not consider "common men" abhorrent. Just common.

LOL at Prakrit being a "courtly language" when it is not even a Language

Brahmins were not in power to preserve "Brahminial" works. How pathetic do one have to be to make such absurd claims.

latin is the language of christianity, and so is sanskrit for hindu brahman religion.

most of the annals, secular works, courtly works in europe were composed in their vernacular languages like english, french etc.

regards

So ? Sanskrit is the language for all Hindus. It is changed the day we are born and the day we die and they die we get married. Sanskrit is part of our lifestyle.

ofcourse BJP will, as it promotes hindu nationalism, and its chief language sanskrit.

regards

You have a problem with that ?

 

[Behram Khilji]

Rajputs were not invaders. Neither were Gujjar foreign. Their name comes from sanskrit Gurjar.

There is no evidence of any discrimination against Hindus in any of these rulers time period.

Many Indians go to UK, Canada, US or Australia too. So what ?

So if a word in Sanskrit is used to identify Britain and the British, does that mean they are not invaders?

 

[Andhadhun]

So if a word in Sanskrit is used to identify Britain and the British, does that mean they are not invaders?

Britain does not come from sanskrit.

So yes, they are invaders.

 

[W.11]

LOL at Prakrit being a "courtly language" when it is not even a Language

a hindu fanatic like you would argue that/ not making any sense.

regards

 

[Andhadhun]

a hindu fanatic like you would argue that/ not making any sense.

regards

........... so prakrit is a language ?

Can you show me the alphabets of this language ?

 

[Robbie]

British capitalised on the marhattas, why because marhattas fate was sealed by a man called Ahmed Shah Abdali.

It's good to dream.

Not really a dream. The Marathas power was reduced by Abdali but they still remained the pre-eminent power in India. The Mughals were no longer a force in India in any case. Abdali ensured that the British had an easy walk in India.

 

[Behram Khilji]

Britain does not come from sanskrit.

So yes, they are invaders.

So if a word describing someone or a distant and far land in Sanskrit, decides to come along and takes over Hindu lands is not a foreigner, could be an African for all that matters.

Not really a dream. The Marathas power was reduced by Abdali but they still remained the pre-eminent power in India. The Mughals were no longer a force in India in any case. Abdali ensured that the British had an easy walk in India.

Well Abdali ensured the long tradionational history of Hindus desire for foreign rule continued, let the Brits roll in.

However if the Brits decided to convert to Hinduism they would have been given a highest caste status & are no longer foreign but natives bit like the Rajput's hay?.

 

[Robbie]

Well Abdali ensured the long tradionational history of Hindus desire for foreign rule continued, let the Brits roll in.

However if the Brits decided to convert to Hinduism they would have been given a highest caste status & are no longer foreign but natives bit like the Rajput's hay?.

You are trying to project what you think of Hindus on me. Are you calling Rajputs foreign? That's mildly interesting.

Either way, on the topic at hand, Aurangzeb was the single biggest reason the Mughal dynasty ended. To that end, I think he was great.

 

[Nilu Pule]

Lol as expected---poor Hindutva incels getting mad in this thread.

Aurangzeb had great positives and as expected, some negatives too. His reign, his conquests, and his policies can be critiqued. But to imagine a balanced view of him from inferiority-complex stricken Hindus is laughable. Afterall, Aurangzeb literally stretch the domination of Mughals across the length and width of Indian landmass like no ruler in Medieval India had ever done so before.

Although, Aurangzeb's reign also coincided with the time where global Islamic domination was setting, and the era of Europe as a the new global hegemon was rising. He died in the 18th century----by mid 18th century, another Islamic empire (Afsharid empire) was arguably the most powerful empire on the face of the Earth. However, after mid 18th century, it was all Europe (that had been rising since quite some time now)

Even in India, after Mughals decline post Aurangzeb---few decades of chaos existed where Sikhs, Marathas etc made small territorial gains temporarily (poor Indians call those meager gains as "empire" LOL)---but by 1757, Brits at Plassey had announced their arrival and domination of India passed from Mughals to Brits effectively.

Aurangzeb, nevertheless, was one of the most powerful and influential Indian ruler. Much more so than any Hindu ruler of Medieval times.

Ironically, Aurangzeb had more power over Indian landmass and population than Modi does today

Boy, I thought you had left the forum.

Glad to see you back. Keep bashing Hindu

 

[W.11]

Can you show me the alphabets of this language ?

what alphabet was used to write sanskrit?

regards

 

[AfrazulMandal]

what alphabet was used to write sanskrit?

regards

You are being thrashed now, sir.

The answer is Devanagri.

Please focus on the topic.

Thank you. Ramadan Kareem.

 

[Nilu Pule]

marathas were a confederacy not a central rule like mughal, the marathas were also pitched against other indian kingdoms, this made indian defense weak, so the british were able to conquer weaker areas before they expanded to other areas, frequently marathas suported british against other native indian rule, indians were also the weakest before british conquest, which happens with every other nation in its history.

regards

What about Mir Jaffar and Mir Qasim?

Why ignore the fact that Mughals foolishly granted trading rights to British paving a way for colonization?

FYI Marathas were also fighting each other.