India is about to spend a ridiculous $530 million on a statue in the middle of the Arabian sea

[Vilander]

On 12/25/2016 at 8:01 AM, radhika said:

I don't get this obsession with statues .Such a waste in a country where so much needs to be done .

Stupid move Mr Modi.

Monuments increase commerce and other utilitarian benefits . This is not a statue it will be an epic monument, that would stand the test of times. Speak of the great Indian Hindu civilization with the pride we should all have about it. It would be the mark that Indian civ leaves on the world.

[BeautifulGame]

Lets add a button to it. Press the button, and it will say "we are playing unchanged 11", and other Dhoni "process" statements.

If we are adding a button the only thing it will say is "We won the freaking world cup"

[mishra]

On 25/12/2016 at 10:50 AM, G_B_ said:

I think the issue is Mumbai has already many prominent Shivaji statues. One at the airport for eg. There is no doubt Shivaji maharaj was the most prominent marathi individuals in the last 500 years. But surely there are others as well? Would love a prominent place named just after sardar Angre.

 

As a state Maharashtra is facing a big fiscal deficit which means cut backs are being made elsewhere on top  of which we are supposed to chip in for the bullet train (a project i support but it still costs money) plus there is the immediate drop in revenue for an industrial state due to the GST (another policy i support). In these times imo this project was not needed or they could have scaled back the grandness.

 

Now if this thing becomes a tourist attraction then fair enough. But I dont see it being that. IMO this is vote bank politics to made inroads in the Sena vote close to the BMC elections and get on the right side of the Maratha reservation uprising. 

It is mixture of everything. There is nothing in Financial capital of India which can be classed as world class.

How long do you want to live on a country of Tajmahal. Statue of Unity, And that massive dam inside the arabian sea may change some perception.

People can live in box shape houses and work in factories/offices. But they make gardens, parks, entertainment encentre, cinemas so on. As an example, Not just Muslims visit Haji Ali. Everyone goes there because it is unique in Mumbai and feel good place. Tourist destinations are feelgood and pride of locals.

I dont mind more such projects if executed honestly, Problem is congress and likes do Suresh Kalmadi when executing Common Wealth.

Edited December 28, 2016 by mishra

[mishra]

On 24/12/2016 at 2:47 PM, New guy said:

Ha, ha, ha the bjp bhakts who used to bash Mayawati etc are now praising this move. There is no hope for this country.  Wasting half a billion dollars for a statue in India. I am surprised people who admire Shivaji do not realize that this is the last thing he would himself want

A lot of people has issue with Maya ji track record of corruption and Elephant statues then Park. They believed project was to siphon money to party fund. And cost of project prooves their belief. Check it, It was nearly 1.5 times then this Shivaji Status project.

[maniac]

20 hours ago, fineleg said:

Lets add a button to it. Press the button, and it will say "we are playing unchanged 11", and other Dhoni "process" statements.

Will be funny if the build a bronze statue but just make the fingers part with paper mache

 

 

[Deleted_User_1]

Shivaji WHO? Eh kya chewtiyapa Arab Sagar mein??

[coffee_rules]

foudasion isstone hi lagge hain na? bana thodi raha hain...

[Tibarn]

On 12/26/2016 at 5:11 PM, Muloghonto said:

I'd put Netaji,Gandhi, BG Tilak, Naoroji, Tagore, Ramanujan, Raman, Mahalanobis, RM Roy, Rani Rashmoni- the list is pretty huge. Its not that hard to find names of Indians who've done more for India than an up jumped marauder who wanted a subcontinent sized personal fief. 

Just because he fought the Mughals doesn't make him an Indian hero, especially since he did f-all for India and Indians.

It's easy to pull names out of hats but to have a good argument for any of them being greater than Shivaji is the difficult part. 

 

Regarding the bolded :

 Reductionism. One can easily say the same thing about Netaji or Gandhi, "fighting" the British (and failing) doesn't automatically make anyone great. Especially if they have stupid ideas on how to run a country and caused lasting damage to the country long after their death.

 

Regarding the Red:

Calling Shivaji a marauder is laughable. Especially when in another thread you yourself trumpet a mass murderer and bigoted religious fanatic like Ashoka. I suggest you actually read history about Shivaji from J Sarkar, GS Sardesai, or RC Majumdar. To say Shivaji's goal was a personal fiefdom is utter nonsense. 

 

Regarding the Blue:

This is the funniest part. The reason that the entire subcontinent isn't a giant quasi-middle eastern shithole is thanks to Shivaji more than anyone else. What tangible achievement exactly did Gandhi, Netaji, Tagore, Ramanujan, etc do that was so great for India and Indians. 

 

Shivaji is up there with the greatest sons of Bharat of all time, with the likes of the Cholas, Chandragupta, Bajirao, etc. Most, if not all, of the people you mentioned aren't even in the same stratosphere.   

 

 

 

[Tibarn]

Apparently people haven't heard about tourism and it's economic benefits. 

 

Kalyug ke bache, no Sanskars and no respect for heroes.   

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, Tibarn said:

It's easy to pull names out of hats but to have a good argument for any of them being greater than Shivaji is the difficult part. 

 

Regarding the bolded :

 Reductionism. One can easily say the same thing about Netaji or Gandhi, "fighting" the British (and failing) doesn't automatically make anyone great. Especially if they have stupid ideas on how to run a country and caused lasting damage to the country long after their death.

 

Regarding the Red:

Calling Shivaji a marauder is laughable. Especially when in another thread you yourself trumpet a mass murderer and bigoted religious fanatic like Ashoka. I suggest you actually read history about Shivaji from J Sarkar, GS Sardesai, or RC Majumdar. To say Shivaji's goal was a personal fiefdom is utter nonsense. 

 

Regarding the Blue:

This is the funniest part. The reason that the entire subcontinent isn't a giant quasi-middle eastern shithole is thanks to Shivaji more than anyone else. What tangible achievement exactly did Gandhi, Netaji, Tagore, Ramanujan, etc do that was so great for India and Indians. 

 

Shivaji is up there with the greatest sons of Bharat of all time, with the likes of the Cholas, Chandragupta, Bajirao, etc. Most, if not all, of the people you mentioned aren't even in the same stratosphere.   

 

 

 

1. Ashoka wasn't a mass murderer. He won a war killing soldiers.

2. Ashoka is infinitely greater than Shivaji because he instituted economic reforms, infrastructure reforms; protected species and forests. First time ever in human history. He also is one of the strongest candidates, along with Augustus Caesar & Emperor Wu Di as the strongest administrative policy-makers in human history . Shivaji is a big fat zero in the most important benchmark for a successful ruler.

3. All Shivaji did was fight the Mughals. Did not beat them, did not have any infrastructure impact and his never-ending war made the region poorer.

4. Saying we are not Muslim because of Shivaji is laughable since the Muslims ruled us for 700 years before Shivaji and less than a 100 years later the British beat them all.

5. Nehru, Gandhi etc were all significantly more accomplished than Shivaji in policy. Whether thats for better or worse, it puts them both ahead of a guy (Shivaji) who's administrative policies are non-existent in comparison.

 

 

Shivaji is nothing more than a Hindu marauder, who like all marauders cared about personal enrichment and fiefs- a fact reflected in subsequent medieval and backwards Maratha political structure. 

 

I am am happy that India was rescued from the Marathas by the Brits because if it weren't for them, India would look like an ethnic shithole like Africa. Because that's how bad Maratha policies were.

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Muloghonto

[surajmal]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Ashoka wasn't a mass murderer. He won a war killing soldiers.

2. Ashoka is infinitely greater than Shivaji because he instituted economic reforms, infrastructure reforms; protected species and forests. First time ever in human history. He also is one of the strongest candidates, along with Augustus Caesar & Emperor Wu Di as the strongest administrative policy-makers in human history . Shivaji is a big fat zero in the most important benchmark for a successful ruler.

3. All Shivaji did was fight the Mughals. Did not beat them, did not have any infrastructure impact and his never-ending war made the region poorer.

4. Saying we are not Muslim because of Shivaji is laughable since the Muslims ruled us for 700 years before Shivaji and less than a 100 years later the British beat them all.

5. Nehru, Gandhi etc were all significantly more accomplished than Shivaji in policy. Whether thats for better or worse, it puts them both ahead of a guy (Shivaji) who's administrative policies are non-existent in comparison.

 

 

Shivaji is nothing more than a Hindu marauder, who like all marauders cared about personal enrichment and fiefs- a fact reflected in subsequent medieval and backwards Maratha political structure. 

 

I am am happy that India was rescued from the Marathas by the Brits because if it weren't for them, India would look like an ethnic shithole like Africa. Because that's how bad Maratha policies were.

 

You keep repeating this bs. Furnish some proof... actual proof and not Buddhist propaganda. 

 

Interesting to note: inflection point of Ashoka's life is him abandoning violence/accepting buddhism...

If that doesnt raise a spockian eyebrow, you are an ingenue.

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by surajmal

[Muloghonto]

15 hours ago, surajmal said:

You keep repeating this bs. Furnish some proof... actual proof and not Buddhist propaganda. 

 

Interesting to note: inflection point of Ashoka's life is him abandoning violence/accepting buddhism...

If that doesnt raise a spockian eyebrow, you are an ingenue.

 

You don't need proof to declare someone NOT a mass murderer. Dude, basic logic 101. You don't prove a negative.

You prove that he IS a mass-murderer.

Of that, we have no evidence.

And when you say 'buddhist propaganda' you expose your lack of knowledge of what Ashokavadana/Divyavadana etc (the ORIGINAL buddhist sources on Ashoka) say of him- thus exposing your propaganda. Buddhists actually over-vilify his pre-Buddhist past & over-glorify his post-Buddhist life to drive home the 'evil-to-good' transformation. I am talking the actual historic perspective formed from examining the FACTS of the original sources.

 

All evidence we have of him, is that he crushed an armed rebellion in Taxila, killed off Sushima & some of his siblings who tried to murder him, then waged war on Kalinga- which apparently kept churning out army after army, after likely producing an early version of a draft, then went all pacifistic.

This does not make one a 'mass murderer'. 

 

Epigraphical as well as original sources state his nation-building experience in detail- he commissioned public funded guest houses, designating protected species, protected forests. 

 

And if we can disqualify Dipavamsa/Mahavamsa as first hand sources because they were written by Buddhists, we can also then disqualify ALL history of Hindu rulers before the arrival of the Mughals, too.

Heck, in convergence of original sources, Ashoka is way ahead in quality of evidence than the likes of Prithvi Raj Chauhan/Rana Sanga, etc. 

I can see a scenario of conversion to pacifism after:

a) conquering all there is left to conquer ( The source as well as epigraphical evidence points that Ashoka controlled directly all the lands from Kandahar-Kabul to Bangladesh-India border, Kashmir to Kerala-Tamil Nadu, with the eastern-most India & southern-most India being his direct vassals. When you got nothing left to conquer/lands logistically impossible to conquer, it can make pragmatic sense to adopt a non-violent principle to try and bridge the gap of culture & ethos of this enormous land thats never been connected politically before

 

b) can also inspire a certain change in certain people- preferring pacifism after a brutal war is not *just* Ashoka's view in history, though his probably was the most famous/extreme manifestation of it.

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Muloghonto

[surajmal]

Quote

Of that, we have no evidence.

"At that time, an incident occurred which greatly enraged the king. A follower of the Nirgrantha (Mahavira) painted a picture, showing Buddha prostrating himself at the feet of the Nirgrantha. Ashoka ordered all the Ajivikas of Pundravardhana (North Bengal) to be killed. In one day, eighteen thousand Ajivikas lost their lives. A similar kind of incident took place in the town of Pataliputra. A man who painted such a picture was burnt alive with his family. It was announced that whoever would bring the king the head of a Nirgrantha would be rewarded with a dinara (a gold coin). As a result of this, thousands of Nirgranthas lost their lives." (S. Mukhopadhyaya: The Ashokavadana, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi 1963)

 

You were saying?

[mishra]

10 hours ago, surajmal said:

"At that time, an incident occurred which greatly enraged the king. A follower of the Nirgrantha (Mahavira) painted a picture, showing Buddha prostrating himself at the feet of the Nirgrantha. Ashoka ordered all the Ajivikas of Pundravardhana (North Bengal) to be killed. In one day, eighteen thousand Ajivikas lost their lives. A similar kind of incident took place in the town of Pataliputra. A man who painted such a picture was burnt alive with his family. It was announced that whoever would bring the king the head of a Nirgrantha would be rewarded with a dinara (a gold coin). As a result of this, thousands of Nirgranthas lost their lives." (S. Mukhopadhyaya: The Ashokavadana, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi 1963)

 

You were saying?

As far as i understand history, people all over world were beheaded just for not saluting the king properly. You are quoting a instance during Kingship where kings god/faith is insulted by a clan.

He did not attack a kingdom or slaughtered enslaved literally raped its people to spread religion.

 

[zen]

Nothing against building the statue if its construction meets various parameters including budget, environmental impact, etc .... However, if the resources are limited, I would have preferred if the money was spent on improving water management, waste management, anti-pollution, etc, measures 

[mishra]

58 minutes ago, zen said:

Nothing against building the statue if its construction meets various parameters including budget, environmental impact, etc .... However, if the resources are limited, I would have preferred if the money was spent on improving water management, waste management, anti-pollution, etc, measures 

Exactly, there is no need to spend  on science and art. Lets shutdown ISRO too it is "still" not a revenue generation enterprise

[Muloghonto]

14 hours ago, surajmal said:

"At that time, an incident occurred which greatly enraged the king. A follower of the Nirgrantha (Mahavira) painted a picture, showing Buddha prostrating himself at the feet of the Nirgrantha. Ashoka ordered all the Ajivikas of Pundravardhana (North Bengal) to be killed. In one day, eighteen thousand Ajivikas lost their lives. A similar kind of incident took place in the town of Pataliputra. A man who painted such a picture was burnt alive with his family. It was announced that whoever would bring the king the head of a Nirgrantha would be rewarded with a dinara (a gold coin). As a result of this, thousands of Nirgranthas lost their lives." (S. Mukhopadhyaya: The Ashokavadana, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi 1963)

 

You were saying?

LOL Ashokavadana. 

You do realize, it isn't considered a historical document because of so many errors in it, correct ?

Of the top of my head i will point a few out, one of which is present in the very text you quoted:

 

a) The Ashokavadana referes to Pushyamitra as a descendant of the Mauryas (which is contradicted by every other source)

b) The Ashokavadana refers to all subsequent dynasties after Mahapadma Nanda as Shudras, which again is contradicted by all other sources

c) Indians did not know of 'Dinara' before the Indo-Roman trade, which began with the conquest of Egypt by the Romans in 40 BC. Ie, 200 years after Ashoka lived. 

Like i said, stick to epigraphical evidence - Ashokan pillars leave a great detail on his economic & social reform. 

[surajmal]

So, you got nothing. Ashokvadana/Divyadana are the first sources commies turn to when they start digging for so called Hindu atrocities on nastiks. 

And I ain't got to stick to fake evidence. Ashoka pillars ? what? Abrahamics could learn a thing or two from the buddhists - the first evangelicals this world has ever seen. Nothing redeeming about their mumbo jumbo. Almost everything derivative, rest plagiarized. No wonder goras are so fascinated.

There is a reason why Bharat remained Hindu. The entire edifice crumbled as soon the megalomaniac died. Whatever lies the monks fed him and whatever legacy they promised, obviously was BS. No one gave a crap on the ground. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by surajmal

[Muloghonto]

27 minutes ago, surajmal said:

So, you got nothing. Ashokvadana/Divyadana are the first sources commies turn to when they start digging for so called Hindu atrocities on nastiks. 

And I ain't got to stick to fake evidence. Ashoka pillars ? what? Abrahamics could learn a thing or two from the buddhists - the first evangelicals this world has ever seen. Nothing redeeming about their mumbo jumbo. Almost everything derivative, rest plagiarized. No wonder goras are so fascinated.

There is a reason why Bharat remained Hindu. The entire edifice crumbled as soon the megalomaniac died. Whatever lies the monks fed him and whatever legacy they promised, obviously was BS. No one gave a crap on the ground. 

1. Epigraphical evidence from 2250 years ago isn't nothing. It's the decisive, overriding evidence.

 

2. I am not a commie, so what commies say is a strawman argument. Attrocities committed by the Hindu rulers against Buddhists/Jains is primarily evidenced from Sangam literature and chronicles of Chinese & Indonesian monks travelling through India in the 6th-12th century AD.

 

3. Ashokan pillars isn't fake evidence, especially since the rock inscription in Orissa mentions the name Ashoka, decisively confirming that the pillars were made by Ashoka.

 

4. We have plenty of evidence , via foreign travellers that suggest India was 50-60% Buddhist & Jain till 1000s AD. Ashoka wasn't the last patron of Buddhism, all Gupta emperors patronized Buddhism along with Vaishnavism, Harsha was a staunch Buddhist and so were the 400 year long Pal dynasty.

In the south, Pallavas, Vakatakas, Satavahanas  & Kalabhras were patrons of Buddhism  & Jainism, the Rashtrakutas were patrons of Jainism predominantly.

5. The reason Bharat was reconverted as Hindu is predominantly due to Islam wiping away Buddhism, Hinduism better equipped to survive it, due to Hinduism being the preferred religion of central Asian Indo-Iranics such as the Hepthalites( ancestors of Afghans), Gujjars( ancestors of Rajputs) and due to violent spreading of Shaivism by the Cholas.

6. You are just butt hurt that the most influential Indian in history is a non-Hindu. Which is why you engage in denigrating non-Hindus in your misguided notions of Hinduvta. And the irony is, the person arguing against you, is a Kulin brahmin( me), who are the Brahmins with the most ancient proven lineages in India.

 

PS: As a cultural Hindu, who's read most of the scriptures, let me say that I find more empiric truth in one chapter of Tripitaka than I find in the entire Gita. But then again, there was a reason why India was #1 in the world in education and science when it was predominantly Buddhist & Jain, not Hindu. 

 

I'd also advice against indoctrinated views arising from your own ego driven ignorance. If you wish to denigrate Buddhism as plagiarized Hinduism, the least you can do is actually read the Buddhist texts before forming an opinion, which you clearly have not. Otherwise you end up sounding like an ignorant Hindu version of a mullah.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

Also, Goras are interested in Buddhism today for the same reason Indians, Chinese were interested in Buddhism 1000+ years ago: they were/are exceedingly rich, better educated and living in lands of abundance. Buddhism promotes enquiry, empiricism and shuns caste divisons, ritualism, blind faith.

Those principles are far easier to grasp and verify for educated& rich minds than poor illiterates.