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

[Sachin=GOD]

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'] Where did I say that he should not be called great? I said if Rajnath Singh had presented facts which showed his greatness rather than merely saying 'if Akbar can be called great then why not Maharana Pratap' then people would have had no problem.

[Raghav_12]

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.

Unfortunately for you, in current age people would think more about staying united at Indians not as Hindus or Muslims, despite all the campaigns those Sanghi's may run.

[mishra]

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

Cos, They kept on surviving. They let us all survive. They didnt slaughter peasants. They didnt took their wife. Didnt burn the villages. It was only from Shivaji Maharaj, it seems for the first time, Hindus started warfare using the same dirty tactics as that of Mughals. But even then too they never slaughtered males from village after village.

[gslv]

If thats the basis' date=' Why not call English raj as golden period. there was more equality, justice and development during the period?[/quote'] Owned .he is never gonna answer that.

[Raghav_12]

Cos' date=' They kept on surviving. They let us all survive. They didnt slaughter peasants. They didnt took their wife. Didnt burn the villages. It was only from Shivaji Maharaj, it seems for the first time, Hindus started warfare using the same dirty tactics as that of Mughals. But even then too they never slaughtered males from village after village.[/quote'] If things were like the way you saying, not so many Rajput would have fought along with Muslims against Marathas and other hindu kings. Just an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bhopal It is just an example. There are many more such.

[Shivaji bhonsle]

Unfortunately for you' date=' in current age people would think more about staying united at Indians not as Hindus or Muslims, despite all the campaigns those Sanghi's may run.[/quote'] Of course I want people stay united as Indians first. But, I hear this word only from Hindus , Christians, and Sikhs, not from Muslims. If Muslims also want to put their country ahead of religion, I will be the first person to be very happy and accept them as my brothers.

[mishra]

Where did I say that he should not be called great? I said if Rajnath Singh had presented facts which showed his greatness rather than merely saying 'if Akbar can be called great then why not Maharana Pratap' then people would have had no problem.

Define greatness to a Indian?

Akbar killed an unconscious Hemu (a Hindu) to become a 'Ghazi' at the second battle of Panipat, he later ordered slaughter of all the captives from Hemu's army and had a victory tower built with their heads. Similarly, Akbar later on ordered a massacre of 30,000 plus unarmed captive Hindu peasants after the fall of Chitod on February 24, 1568. Are these the characteristics of a truly 'secular' and 'tolerant' emperor ? Should Akbar be called 'Great' and 'Secular' only because he was a lesser despot than the rest of the Mughal emperors ?

[Sachin=GOD]

BTW what does the MAHA in Maharana mean? (I think it means Great but am not sure)

[Raghav_12]

Of course I want people stay united as Indians first. But' date=' I hear this word only from Hindus , Christians, and Sikhs, not from Muslims. If Muslims also want to put their country ahead of religion, I will be the first person to be very happy and accept them as my brothers.[/quote'] See, my objection with Rajnath's statement is more to do with historical facts. It has nothing to do with Hindu or Muslim divide (while he clearly made this statement with communal mindset). Marathas were stauch Hindu forces who almost never colloborated with Mughal's unlike Rajputs. But I would make all arguments why they should be called great. But with Rajputs, things don't just add up. You can very well call them your hero ( I would call Maharana Pratap my hero as well) but historical facts would come in way if you call them great.

[Yoda-esque]

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.

At the mughal empire's peak, about 80-85 pc of the country's wealth resided around 600 odd people. Must be some golden period.

[Yoda-esque]

I would suggest that "enlightened" posters here read "Life and Times of Mughals" by Abraham Eraly to understand what a "golden period" it was. Also read "The First Spring" volumes 1 and 2 by the same author to understand the Gupta period.

[mishra]

If things were like the way you saying, not so many Rajput would have fought along with Muslims against Marathas and other hindu kings. Just an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bhopal It is just an example. There are many more such.

You know that even British came very late to realize that Indian kings were generally men of worlds. Once beaten and accepted the allegiance thy honored that. Rajputs were beaten way back during Akbars time and aligned with Akbar s army. As i said, It was Shivaji Maharaj and Marathas who started playing the same game as that of these Mughals.

[Raghav_12]

Define greatness to a Indian?

You would like to know the fact that at the time of Panipat Second war (war with Hemu)Akbar was 14 years old and in war of Chittorgarh, overall casulaties were even between Rajputs and Mughals. Outside wars, he had maintained cordial relations with Rajputs. That's why Mughal empire continued for 100 more years after his death. Aurangzeb had even bigger empire but that crumbled immediately after his death beause of the animosity he had generated with local hindu rulers.

[Shivaji bhonsle]

See' date=' my objection with Rajnath's statement is more to do with historical facts. It has nothing to do with Hindu or Muslim divide (while he clearly made this statement with communal mindset). Marathas were stauch Hindu forces who almost never colloborated with Mughal's unlike Rajputs. But I would make all arguments why they should be called great. But with Rajputs, things don't just add up. You can very well call them your hero ( I would call Maharana Pratap my hero as well) but historical facts would come in way if you call them great.[/quote'] history is what you make of just like you called Mughals as great when they mostly indulged in killing Hindus and converting them to Muslims. Rajnath may be called Maharana pratap as a great since he is also a Rajput. But, people like Chattarsaal, Rani laxmi bai, netaji, are all the sons of our motherland. They are obviously great, man. You don't need historians to say it this to you and you don't need their permission to call them as great.

[someone]

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.

Another bad post. You are the worst poster in ICF. You have called the biggest genocide as just a war. You should read some history books and see how many were murdered, raped by these barbaric Muslims. With your prejudice, you should realize that now you are justifying this genocide. This was the biggest halocaust in the world and yet, it is all whitewashed from history. If India was really a secular country, we would be teaching our children their actual history instead of hiding from it.

[Detonator]

^ Yep, a king who built a tower with human skulls is "great"

[mishra]

I would suggest that "enlightened" posters here read "Life and Times of Mughals" by Abraham Eraly to understand what a "golden period" it was. Also read "The First Spring" volumes 1 and 2 by the same author to understand the Gupta period.

Going to do some serious read on them, whatever available freely

[The Outsider]

LOL! The meaning of Akbar in Arabic/Urdu is great. The king's name was Jalaluddin and during his tenure it was suffixes by Akbar which means great.

[Yoda-esque]

history is what you make of just like you called Mughals as great when they mostly indulged in killing Hindus and converting them to Muslims. Rajnath may be called Maharana pratap as a great since he is also a Rajput. But, people like Chattarsaal, Rani laxmi bai, netaji, are all the sons of our motherland. They are obviously great, man. You don't need historians to say it this to you and you don't need their permission to call them as great.

The problem is that during the Mughal reign, all the top slots were occupied by Persians then followed by the Turko-Mongols.The ruling class was almost completely Muslim while the poor peasant class was not.That should explain some of the servile mindset that most of the non minority have even to this day. Additionally,Persians were amazing at maintaining and documenting history , not without effusive and hyperbolic praise for the Padishah. Like I said, there's difference between governance and prosperity.There was hardly any progress during the Mughal era apart from the few years of Shah Jahan in terms of Islamic architecture and that too was self aggrandizement.Was there any worthwhile library established or any noteworthy scientific accomplishment during this period? One could not build temples under Mughals, only repair them. Akbar established the mansabdari system but as mentioned earlier, it left the governing class richer with 80-90 pc of wealth in the hands of a few hundred. It's all relative.Compared to Babur before him and Shahjehan and Aurangzeb after him, Akbar was the most tolerant.But that alone does not make him great.

[Raghav_12]

^ Yep, a king who built a tower with human skulls is "great"

As mentioned in another post. Age of Akbar at the time of war with Hemu was 14. A fact that Sangh propoganda will hide when circulating all other facts.