Rajnath says if Akbar is ‘Great’, so is Rana Pratap, wants history corrected

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Mughal Age was compared with golden period but I didn't read Akbar the great.

I read Akbar the great in CBSE.

[hhunaeh]

Maha Maharana pratap??

[mishra]

^ Probably he picked akbar because the two were rivals. One is recorded as "the great" and other isnt. But yes, could have avoided the referrence

[Sachin=GOD]

Maha Maharana pratap??

[someone]

And yeah, agree that such petty things don't matter. Rajnath Singh wants to call Maharana Pratap the great - he can do so. No need to create controversy by unnecessary comparisons. If Maharana Pratap deserves (or doesn't deserve) to be called GREAT, it should be on his own merits, not because Akbar is also called GREAT.

Rajnath had to do it purposefully unfortunately. If he only said Maharana Pratap should be called great, our media would have a field day calling it Hindutva, communal etc. He used Akbar to not have any controversy so that should be appreciated actually. We live in a terrible India where if Hindus wants rights or praises, they have to use Muslims as a example. Hindus themselves can't ask anything from the country. As when you mention Muslims, everything becomes secular, else it can be deemed communal.

[Sachin=GOD]

Rajnath had to do it purposefully unfortunately. If he only said Maharana Pratap should be called great, our media would have a field day calling it Hindutva, communal etc. He used Akbar to not have any controversy so that should be appreciated actually. We live in a terrible India where if Hindus wants rights or praises, they have to use Muslims as a example. Hindus themselves can't ask anything from the country. As when you mention Muslims, everything becomes secular, else it can be deemed communal.

The problem is that politicians across party lines have assumed that the people (or rather, voters) are foolish/idiots that is why they think that saying 'Maharana Pratap did xyz great things so he deserves to be called GREAT' would offend the people so they find the need to bring in Akbar because they think the people are not intelligent enough - in reality it would not offend the people and it would not be seen as communal if politicians try to speak rationally rather than playing to the people's emotions/religious sentiments on all issues. And the media obviously gets a juicy story on such issues so it pursues it.

[Raghav_12]

Marathas were united. Rajputs fought among themselves and always had less numbers compared to mughals. Big difference. But, the valor and courage of Rajputs are second to none. That's why still significant numbers of Rajputs represent Indian armed forces. Im a bundela rajput. We took on mughal empire in the 16th century, lost due to less numbers, but didn't convert like few cowards. Lot of People from bundela rajput caste left to south India where they are called as "bondilli" a corrupted name of Bundela. Hinduism is a part of our lives. Although, I feel bad and worried about unity of our religion, I will always be proud of my forefathers who didn't convert to an alien religion. they gladly accepted death before submission. You may not be proud, but I am.

Histiory judges greatness on the basis of results achieved not on the basis of how brave or courageous you were. Though there is no reason for you not to be proud of Rajputs but objectively speaking I would always say that Marathas are the only ones which can be called being great in medieval India, other than Mughals. History doesn't judge greatness for the sentiments that you may have. History looks at the things like area that your empire commanded or whether you were able to provide a stable administration and system etc. In history I recall reading about two golden periods one is around Gupta Dynasty and other around Mughal Empire. I am really interested in hearing from sanghi loonies which other period they would like to be included as Golden Period?

[someone]

The problem is that politicians across party lines have assumed that the people (or rather' date=' voters) are foolish/idiots that is why they think that saying 'Maharana Pratap did xyz great things so he deserves to be called GREAT' would offend the people so they find the need to bring in Akbar because they think the people are not intelligent enough[/quote'] Our media aren't intelligent, it only knows how to sensationalize things. And if comes from a BJP member, expect fireworks. And our people are innocent and blindly believe whatever the media shows them. You are lying to yourself if you think otherwise. Try again, Rajnath just says that Maharana Pratap should e called great. That would have become a big communal statement, he got saved from big controversy just because of his reference to Akbar. Hindus demands/rights are inherently communal while Muslims demands/rights are true secularism for India. It's a sad situation.

[someone]

In history I recall reading about two golden periods one is around Gupta Dynasty and other around Mughal Empire.

When Mughal Empire is called golden period, it shows the fundamental problems in the country. Hitler's era being called a golden period in Israel, would that happen? Actual history and facts are not taught about the Mughals in India.

[Sachin=GOD]

Our media aren't intelligent, it only knows how to sensationalize things. And if comes from a BJP member, expect fireworks. And our people are innocent and blindly believe whatever the media shows them. You are lying to yourself if you think otherwise. Try again, Rajnath just says that Maharana Pratap should e called great. That would have become a big communal statement, he got saved from big controversy just because of his reference to Akbar. Hindus demands/rights are inherently communal while Muslims demands/rights are true secularism for India. It's a sad situation.

If Rajnath Singh can present some reasons as to why Maharana Pratap should be called GREAT - what great battles he won or any great empire he created or did he have a great army or a great administration etc - then most people (and I obviously do not include the media or attention grabbers like Azam Khan in this list) would not have a problem in accepting it.

[Raghav_12]

When Mughal Empire is called golden period, it shows the fundamental problems in the country. Hitler's era being called a golden period in Israel, would that happen? Actual history and facts are not taught about the Mughals in India.

Fundamental problem is the mindset that you have. It is called golden period because of stability and system that Mughal emperors provided. A large India was under a central kind of leadership with good development in multiple areas. Compare that with Rajputs. Roughly within the area of half of the Rajsthan there were dozens of states with significant population always involved in the war. You may grudge the fact tha they were Muslims and they had defaeted hindu kings but those things don't change hsitorical facts. When judging history you have to remove your communal biases. I have been great fan of Marathas and believe say they should be called great (though not at the level of Mughals.) I call them great becaue they lasted around 100 years. Put together a system and controlled a significant area or population. Whether they were muslims or hindu is hardly a parameter in my assessment of historical greatness.

[mishra]

If Rajnath Singh can present some reasons as to why Maharana Pratap should be called GREAT - what great battles he won or any great empire he created or did he have a great army or a great administration etc - then most people (and I obviously do not include the media or attention grabbers like Azam Khan in this list) would not have a problem in accepting it.

Are you serious? You know right that India would have turned all Mughal if it wasnt the like of maha Rana Pratap, Shivaji, Guru Govind Singh? These people sacrificed everything. Just because tyranny, continued destruction of social fabric and indian civilastion isnt mentioned or atleast watered down in our history books doesnt means Mughals didnt do it.

[asterix]

Maharana Pratap must've turned in his grave today after knowing some of the 'facts'... :giggle:

[mishra]

Fundamental problem is the mindset that you have. It is called golden period because of stability and system that Mughal emperors provided. A large India was under a central kind of leadership with good development in multiple areas. Compare that with Rajputs. Roughly within the area of half of the Rajsthan there were dozens of states with significant population always involved in the war. You may grudge the fact tha they were Muslims and they had defaeted hindu kings but those things don't change hsitorical facts. When judging history you have to remove your communal biases. I have been great fan of Marathas and believe say they should be called great (though not at the level of Mughals.) I call them great becaue they lasted around 100 years. Put together a system and controlled a significant area or population. Whether they were muslims or hindu is hardly a parameter in my assessment of historical greatness.

If thats the basis, Why not call English raj as golden period. there was more equality, justice and development during the period?

[someone]

Fundamental problem is the mindset that you have. It is called golden period because of stability and system that Mughal emperors provided. A large India was under a central kind of leadership with good development in multiple areas. Compare that with Rajputs. Roughly within the area of half of the Rajsthan there were dozens of states with significant population always involved in the war. You may grudge the fact tha they were Muslims and they had defaeted hindu kings but those things don't change hsitorical facts.

That's one of worst posts I have seen on ICF ever. Mughals carried out the biggest genocide in history, Holocaust was smaller than it. And you still want to call it as golden period. Raghav, you really are the most communal poster here. The lizard would be very proud of you today.

[Raghav_12]

Are you serious? You know right that India would have turned all Mughal if it wasnt the like of maha Rana Pratap' date=' Shivaji, Guru Govind Singh? These people sacrificed everything. Just because tyranny, continued destruction of social fabric and indian civilastion isnt mentioned or atleast watered down in our history books doesnt means Mughals didnt do it.[/quote'] That was medieval time and kings/rulers invaded each other to expans their territories. You can't bestow greatness just for having intentions. Look at the expanse of Maratha empire in 1758, few years before Panipat 3rd war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marathas_India_(1758).jpg Compare that with the largest territory that Maharama Pratap ever commanded. All you can say Maharana Pratap was brave, courageous or whatever, but calling him great is just being emotional, bordering foolishness, about history

[mishra]

That's one of worst posts I have seen on ICF ever. Mughals carried out the biggest genocide in history, Holocaust was smaller than it. And you still want to call it as golden period. Raghav, you really are the most communal poster here. The lizard would be very proud of you today.

Before Mughals, Hindus,Buddhist and jains used to live from kandhar to Banglalesh (i dare say Combodia, Thaland Malayasia). Now there are none left. History records our Kings used to donate whole heartedly at various religious and educational places. North India used to have one of the richest kings. There was no concept of war booty or fighting in dark. Military warfare didnt involve killing peasants or their children or burning villages. It didnt involve taxing more to a particular set of people Now there is no evidence of that. Muslims which came from Arabian countries surely didn't look like present day Bengalee Muslim.

[Raghav_12]

That's one of worst posts I have seen on ICF ever. Mughals carried out the biggest genocide in history, Holocaust was smaller than it. And you still want to call it as golden period. Raghav, you really are the most communal poster here. The lizard would be very proud of you today.

People killed each other in the wars. Whether they were between two hindu kings or were between two muslims and between hindu-muslim. You should read that how bloody were wars when they were fought between two rajput kings. Rajputs (Tomers and Chauhans) were always killing each other to capture Delhi before it was taken over by Gauri and Delhi Sultanate followed. There were was between Muslims as well. Two of the three great Panipat wars were between Muslims only. Going by that notion whole mediaval age was a big holocaust. See history as it has been without bringing your own biases to it.

[Raghav_12]

Before Mughals, Hindus,Buddhist and jains used to live from kandhar to Banglalesh (i dare say Combodia, Thaland Malayasia). Now there are none left. History records our Kings used to donate whole heartedly at various religious and educational places. North India used to have one of the richest kings. There was no concept of war booty or fighting in dark. Military warfare didnt involve killing peasants or their children or burning villages. It didnt involve taxing more to a particular set of people Now there is no evidence of that. Muslims which came from Arabian countries surely didn't look like present day Bengalee Muslim.

This is one of the most fake utopia which is perpetuated by Sanghis and their ilk. Things were good until Harshwardhan inn 800 AD or so. Post that in north India it was like war lords fighting and killing each other for the sake of territory.

[Shivaji bhonsle]

Histiory judges greatness on the basis of results achieved not on the basis of how brave or courageous you were. Though there is no reason for you not to be proud of Rajputs but objectively speaking I would always say that Marathas are the only ones which can be called being great in medieval India, other than Mughals. History doesn't judge greatness for the sentiments that you may have. History looks at the things like area that your empire commanded or whether you were able to provide a stable administration and system etc. In history I recall reading about two golden periods one is around Gupta Dynasty and other around Mughal Empire. I am really interested in hearing from sanghi loonies which other period they would like to be included as Golden Period?

History will remember Maharana pratap , chattarsaal, or Jhansi ki Rani laxmi bai for challenging the mighty army despite knowing that they will be killed and they can't match big armies. That's what we call courage. You may choose to ignore as you have not read about them in text books which was designed by left liberals who always undermine our heroes and accept foreigners like Mao, Stalin or Lenin as their heroes. Lol. They are an inspiration to Indian people who fought for freedom and for their people. They choose death before submission. There is reason why people fondly remember them till now. You can choose to ignore, but in this internet world people are getting to know their history better and my hope Hindus stay united as they learn more about their history, not the bakwas history you study in text books.