10 Greatest Indians

[coffee_rules]

Have to exclude politicians in the post-Independence era. Very few like Lal Bahudur Shastri,Vajpayee have a clean image.

[Zelig]

1. [Dr B.R. Ambedkar]]- chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution of India 2. J. R. D. Tata 3. Lata Mangeshkar 4. Sachin Tendulkar 5. Jawaharlal Nehru 6. Mother Teresa 7. Atal Bihari Vajpayee 8. Vallabhbhai Patel 9. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam 10. Indira Gandhi

:WTF: Nehru & Indu over MK Gandhi & Bose? Did the hand people rig this poll? :hmmm:

[Muloghonto]

Pre-Independence: Chanakya, (writer of Arthashastra) Ashoka Aryabhata Bhaskara I Bhaskara II or Bhaskaracharya Brahmagupta Kalidasa Krishna Deva Raya Prithviraj Chauhan Shivaji

IMO, Samudragupta is more important to Indian history than Krishna Deva Raya, Shivaji and definitely Prithviraj Chauhan, who as far as rulers go, was a nobody. Samudragupta, like Mahapadma Nanda before him, re-invented the Indian political landscape. From approx. 400 BC to 350 CE, Indian politics followed the model of Mahapadma Nanda from the Magadh Emipre: The concept of 'ekachatra', the 'only' emperor, who did not just conquer his adversaries but dethroned the ruling dynasties and local kings, re-organized the land in provinces headed by a general and a crown representative, almost always a relative. This system had its pros and cons: under a strong ruler like Mahapadma Nanda/Chandragupta/Bindusara/Ashoka/Pushyamitra/Huvishka/Kanishka etc. it was a very powerful and unified empire. But under weaker rulers or in times of turmoil, these provinces would break away and establish independence, owing to being already ruled by the royal clan/powerful general and lead to fragmentation (as it happened post Ashoka/after the first Kanva suzerain etc). Samudragupta invented the 'conquer, puppetise and make the local rulers subordinate to him' in a historic sense. Before him, we don't have any actual evidence of this form of rulership, only mentioned in epics like Mahabharata or Jain works about a king conquering the other king, getting him to be a vassal and leaving. Samudragupta started this and this model pretty much remained the template of Indian politics from 350s CE to the end of the maratha empire in the early 1800s CE. He was also quite literally undefeated in battle and managed to expand the Gupta empire, which at the time of his coronation was basically UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal & Bangladesh to encompass the entire subcontinent minus Gujrat, Malwa, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. Also, IMO Rajendra Chola was far more influential to history than Krishna Deva Raya : he was the first monarch in history of mankind to embark over open oceans for overseas conquest and was the first true blue-water naval power, having conquered Java, Sumatra and parts of the Malay peninsula along with getting the rulers of Burma to pay homage to him.

[Muloghonto]

too many mathematicians.. not a single freedom fighter(Gandhi et al)? ps: Do you have any links/suggest books as to how Panini influenced modern grammar in Indic or Germanic languages ?

Panini is *THE* influence over Indian grammar because every single instance of Sanskrit we know outside of the Vedas are classical sanskrit and not vedic sanskrit. Basically, Panini invented linguistics as we know it today: the study of languages in a scientific form paying attention to mutative aspects of lexicons, morphologies and syntax. His work and the work by his brother (Patanjali) on Mahabhasya (a commentary on Astadhyayi, Panini's grammar work) became *the* benchmark for sanskrit. It is by far the most compact book on grammar, which does not sacrifice accuracy for compactness. One can say that every single North Indian (and to a huge extent south Indian languages, because modern south Indian languages have heavy Sanskrit borrowings) evolved under the parameters set and discovered by Panini. His influence over the contemporary Roman/Greek/Germanic languages are unknown and probably insignificant because those people most likely never heard or studied Panini. But modern linguistics as a structured study was invented by Panini and modern linguists such as Franz Bopp, Noam Chomsky, Leonard Bloomfield, Ferdinand de Sassure etc. directly link their theories as inspired by Panini's Ashtadhyayi and in some cases, pretty much directly applying Ashtadhyayi to the study of linguistics.

[Kalia_Test]

:WTF: Nehru & Indu over MK Gandhi & Bose? Did the hand people rig this poll? :hmmm:

This is post independence and the poll omitted MK Gandhi as a nominee as mentioned.

[diga]

Panini is *THE* influence over Indian grammar because every single instance of Sanskrit we know outside of the Vedas are classical sanskrit and not vedic sanskrit. Basically, Panini invented linguistics as we know it today: the study of languages in a scientific form paying attention to mutative aspects of lexicons, morphologies and syntax. His work and the work by his brother (Patanjali) on Mahabhasya (a commentary on Astadhyayi, Panini's grammar work) became *the* benchmark for sanskrit. It is by far the most compact book on grammar, which does not sacrifice accuracy for compactness. One can say that every single North Indian (and to a huge extent south Indian languages, because modern south Indian languages have heavy Sanskrit borrowings) evolved under the parameters set and discovered by Panini. His influence over the contemporary Roman/Greek/Germanic languages are unknown and probably insignificant because those people most likely never heard or studied Panini. But modern linguistics as a structured study was invented by Panini and modern linguists such as Franz Bopp, Noam Chomsky, Leonard Bloomfield, Ferdinand de Sassure etc. directly link their theories as inspired by Panini's Ashtadhyayi and in some cases, pretty much directly applying Ashtadhyayi to the study of linguistics.

Thanks.. can you recommend any book on Panini's influence on modern grammar?

[Sachin=GOD]

@Muloghonto - can you recommend some good books on pre British period in Indian History. I have been wanting to read more on this topic for a long time...

[Muloghonto]

Thanks.. can you recommend any book on Panini's influence on modern grammar?

I will get back to you on that. Linguistics is not something I know of beyond the basics Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[Muloghonto]

@Muloghonto - can you recommend some good books on pre British period in Indian History. I have been wanting to read more on this topic for a long time...

What period exactly ? Pre british is basically 5000 bce to 1750s ce. Can you be more specific ? Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[coffee_rules]

IMO, Samudragupta is more important to Indian history than Krishna Deva Raya, Shivaji and definitely Prithviraj Chauhan, who as far as rulers go, was a nobody. Samudragupta, like Mahapadma Nanda before him, re-invented the Indian political landscape. From approx. 400 BC to 350 CE, Indian politics followed the model of Mahapadma Nanda from the Magadh Emipre: The concept of 'ekachatra', the 'only' emperor, who did not just conquer his adversaries but dethroned the ruling dynasties and local kings, re-organized the land in provinces headed by a general and a crown representative, almost always a relative. This system had its pros and cons: under a strong ruler like Mahapadma Nanda/Chandragupta/Bindusara/Ashoka/Pushyamitra/Huvishka/Kanishka etc. it was a very powerful and unified empire. But under weaker rulers or in times of turmoil, these provinces would break away and establish independence, owing to being already ruled by the royal clan/powerful general and lead to fragmentation (as it happened post Ashoka/after the first Kanva suzerain etc). Samudragupta invented the 'conquer, puppetise and make the local rulers subordinate to him' in a historic sense. Before him, we don't have any actual evidence of this form of rulership, only mentioned in epics like Mahabharata or Jain works about a king conquering the other king, getting him to be a vassal and leaving. Samudragupta started this and this model pretty much remained the template of Indian politics from 350s CE to the end of the maratha empire in the early 1800s CE. He was also quite literally undefeated in battle and managed to expand the Gupta empire, which at the time of his coronation was basically UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal & Bangladesh to encompass the entire subcontinent minus Gujrat, Malwa, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. Also, IMO Rajendra Chola was far more influential to history than Krishna Deva Raya : he was the first monarch in history of mankind to embark over open oceans for overseas conquest and was the first true blue-water naval power, having conquered Java, Sumatra and parts of the Malay peninsula along with getting the rulers of Burma to pay homage to him.

Agree, I forgot about the golden period of ancient India. I was thinking of kings who fought foreign forces to preserve the identity of India, more than kings who made India. Agree about Raja Chola higher in the order than kings in my list. He was instrumental in spreading Hinduism to most parts in SE Asia, had a commanding naval force , perhaps the only one from Ancient India who explored the seas. Although, The concept of forcing alliances through marriage and other means, to build an empire with puppet governments was known from Egyptian and Kush kingdoms from Ancient Egypt and even Alexander.

[Muloghonto]

Agree, I forgot about the golden period of ancient India. I was thinking of kings who fought foreign forces to preserve the identity of India, more than kings who made India. Agree about Raja Chola higher in the order than kings in my list. He was instrumental in spreading Hinduism to most parts in SE Asia, had a commanding naval force , perhaps the only one from Ancient India who explored the seas. Although, The concept of forcing alliances through marriage and other means, to build an empire with puppet governments was known from Egyptian and Kush kingdoms from Ancient Egypt and even Alexander.

You are correct 're: forging alliances and Egyptians/Babylonians etc. I should've said 'reinvented' because Indians too did that in the days if the mahajanapadas. It's just that from 400s bce to 350s 've nobody in India tried to form an empire based on marriage alliances and vassals. Imo rajaraja didn't do much to spread Hinduism in southeast Asia. For one the most illustrious hinduempire of se Asia was the Khmer and they were already established by the days of rajaraja. For two, the gupta period was the period of most intense immigration to se Asia and Indianized kingdoms start to proliferate with the gupta period. For three the dominant form of Hinduism in se Asia was vaishnavism and that was the favoured for of Hinduism of the guptas. Whereas the cholas were avowed shaivites. Rajaraja was the first to exert direct control over overseas territories of India in se Asia.

[coffee_rules]

You are correct 're: forging alliances and Egyptians/Babylonians etc. I should've said 'reinvented' because Indians too did that in the days if the mahajanapadas. It's just that from 400s bce to 350s 've nobody in India tried to form an empire based on marriage alliances and vassals. Imo rajaraja didn't do much to spread Hinduism in southeast Asia. For one the most illustrious hinduempire of se Asia was the Khmer and they were already established by the days of rajaraja. For two, the gupta period was the period of most intense immigration to se Asia and Indianized kingdoms start to proliferate with the gupta period. For three the dominant form of Hinduism in se Asia was vaishnavism and that was the favoured for of Hinduism of the guptas. Whereas the cholas were avowed shaivites. Rajaraja was the first to exert direct control over overseas territories of India in se Asia.

Thanks for correcting. There used to a site called Itihaas.com where the timelines of Ancient India (vedic period). It has vanished now. I didn't find any site that gives these timelines of the same quality. (Wiki has , but could be unreliable).

[BeautifulGame]

You are correct 're: forging alliances and Egyptians/Babylonians etc. I should've said 'reinvented' because Indians too did that in the days if the mahajanapadas. It's just that from 400s bce to 350s 've nobody in India tried to form an empire based on marriage alliances and vassals. Imo rajaraja didn't do much to spread Hinduism in southeast Asia. For one the most illustrious hinduempire of se Asia was the Khmer and they were already established by the days of rajaraja. For two, the gupta period was the period of most intense immigration to se Asia and Indianized kingdoms start to proliferate with the gupta period. For three the dominant form of Hinduism in se Asia was vaishnavism and that was the favoured for of Hinduism of the guptas. Whereas the cholas were avowed shaivites. Rajaraja was the first to exert direct control over overseas territories of India in se Asia.

Sorry to be Pedantic but RajaRaja influence didn't expend beyond Lanka .Its Rajendra Cholan who invaded SE Asia .

[Sachin=GOD]

What period exactly ? Pre british is basically 5000 bce to 1750s ce. Can you be more specific ? Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

I have not read enough about most of pre British period so suggest anything you like. Or maybe start from the beginning - as far back as you can go. Thanks.

[Muloghonto]

For indus valley civilization, read: 1. Ancient cities of the Indus Valley Civilization ( Jonathan Kenoyer) 2. The Indus Civilization by Gregory Possehl 3. Dawn and Devolution of Indus Civilization by Shikaripur Ranganatha Rao For the Mauryan period : 1. Mauryan Empire by Dr. Mahesh Vikram 2. The Age of the Mauryas and Nandas by KA Shastri

[Muloghonto]

This is my personal advice: Try seeing all (or almost all) history as inter-related and do not focus only on a specific period of history or a specific region. Because human beings do not live in a void. Its not like the Achaemenid Persians didn't know who was king of Magadh, its not like the traders from Ganges valley had no idea who Daryavahush was. History is a 4-d mosaic, with often the cultural and financial aspects of inter-related histories massively overlooked in 'classical history', which is basically a history of politics only. It is an incomplete and often a very dangerous viewpoint to see history in isolation. If you are interested in the history of Indian subcontinent, i would suggest reading (wiki is inaccurate sometimes but a good easy start) the conjoined histories of the Iranian plateau ( Greater Iran) as well because often what happened in Iran/Afghanistan influenced India and vice versa. I will make a special mention that once you advance through the basics of ancient indian history, you also read Roman history because Indian and Roman histories are intricately related. We were to Roman empire what America was to the world in the cold war period- the top producer, exporter and conduit for knowledge and finance. It is no surprise that the rise and fall of the Roman Empire played a huge effect on the rise and fall of Indian empires and the political landscape of India. Once you read and realize the level of inter-dependence of the Indo-Roman empires, particularly the Kushan-Roman Empire, Gupta-Roman Empire, Satavahana-Roman Empire and Vakataka-Roman empire, the inter-related fates of these empires become very obvious. Both were very dependent on each other. India supplied Rome with most of its luxuries and a surprising amount of its basics (e.g.: every Roman senator wore a cotton toga. Cotton was exclusively grown and exported in that era from India only. Roman empire was massively rich in silver, a currency commodity India was very poor in and thus one could say that India played a critical role in shoring up the luxuries and many basic amenities that made Roman Empire possible while Roman Empire provided the silver that made Indian commerce possible).

[sage]

Sachin should be in the Top 5

[Desi Cartman]

No Harsha Bhogle in the list :WTF:

[sage]

This is not a "people that should be shot at sight" list Desi Cartman

[Sachin=GOD]

For indus valley civilization, read: 1. Ancient cities of the Indus Valley Civilization ( Jonathan Kenoyer) 2. The Indus Civilization by Gregory Possehl 3. Dawn and Devolution of Indus Civilization by Shikaripur Ranganatha Rao For the Mauryan period : 1. Mauryan Empire by Dr. Mahesh Vikram 2. The Age of the Mauryas and Nandas by KA Shastri

This is my personal advice: Try seeing all (or almost all) history as inter-related and do not focus only on a specific period of history or a specific region. Because human beings do not live in a void. Its not like the Achaemenid Persians didn't know who was king of Magadh, its not like the traders from Ganges valley had no idea who Daryavahush was. History is a 4-d mosaic, with often the cultural and financial aspects of inter-related histories massively overlooked in 'classical history', which is basically a history of politics only. It is an incomplete and often a very dangerous viewpoint to see history in isolation. If you are interested in the history of Indian subcontinent, i would suggest reading (wiki is inaccurate sometimes but a good easy start) the conjoined histories of the Iranian plateau ( Greater Iran) as well because often what happened in Iran/Afghanistan influenced India and vice versa. I will make a special mention that once you advance through the basics of ancient indian history, you also read Roman history because Indian and Roman histories are intricately related. We were to Roman empire what America was to the world in the cold war period- the top producer, exporter and conduit for knowledge and finance. It is no surprise that the rise and fall of the Roman Empire played a huge effect on the rise and fall of Indian empires and the political landscape of India. Once you read and realize the level of inter-dependence of the Indo-Roman empires, particularly the Kushan-Roman Empire, Gupta-Roman Empire, Satavahana-Roman Empire and Vakataka-Roman empire, the inter-related fates of these empires become very obvious. Both were very dependent on each other. India supplied Rome with most of its luxuries and a surprising amount of its basics (e.g.: every Roman senator wore a cotton toga. Cotton was exclusively grown and exported in that era from India only. Roman empire was massively rich in silver, a currency commodity India was very poor in and thus one could say that India played a critical role in shoring up the luxuries and many basic amenities that made Roman Empire possible while Roman Empire provided the silver that made Indian commerce possible).

Thanks a lot. Will try to get these books and start reading. Been wanting to read Indian history for s long time. And yes, Roman History is also must read - I find it very fascinating (though Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire is a bit too much even for me).