Raghav_12 Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 we should start with the cities perhaps ? Aurangabad ' date=' Ahmedabad...etc[/quote'] also remove aryans references as well as they were also outsiders.
seedhi Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Dear Mr Rajnath Singh: It is Akbar who makes Maharana Pratap great http://www.firstpost.com/politics/dear-mr-rajnath-singh-it-is-akbar-who-makes-maharana-pratap-great-2250044.html Very sensible take on this. These chaddi's should stop putting historical figures against each other.One of the most idiotic articles, the author simply does not understand there is a difference between being great and being powerful. The British empire was powerful but not great, and yet Bhagat Singh, Subhas Bose and others were great for fighting against the British. Aurangzeb, Hitler, Stalin, Nadir Shah, Mahmud Ghazni .. all were powerful but not great. On the other hand, Ashoka was powerful and then became (arguably) the greatest among the great rulers in the history of the world. I don't see anything wrong in Rajnath Singh's argument - if anything he makes the valid point that Akbar should not be called great just because he was a powerful emperor. Greatness is fighting against tyranny and Rana Pratap is more deserving to be called Great.
Detonator Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Dear Mr Rajnath Singh: It is Akbar who makes Maharana Pratap great http://www.firstpost.com/politics/dear-mr-rajnath-singh-it-is-akbar-who-makes-maharana-pratap-great-2250044.html Very sensible take on this. These chaddi's should stop putting historical figures against each other. It's an incredibly stupid take on this dood. By that retard's logic, it's the British who made MKGandhi a great.
Precambrian Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Shane Warne made Tendulkar great. Binny made Bangladeshis great.. Oh wait a minute. Wrong example.
mishra Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 we should start with the cities perhaps ? Aurangabad ' date=' Ahmedabad...etc[/quote'] There used to be a city used called Prayag. Among Hundus, city of Prayag with Sangam is one of the holiest place. Now there is no more Prayag. Anyone else advocating Akbar the greats as being not anti Hindu should know the city was renamed as Allahabad by him
singhprakash72 Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Historical figures have long been used by contemporary leaders for their own agenda...this is nothing new. In 16th Century Akbar and Rana Pratap were just enemy so would have been some rival Rajput kingdoms of present day UP,MP & Rajasthan. Now really by making Rana Pratap or Akbar great what is present day India going to achieve ?....treat history as history. Lastly every ruler including British (no matter how much they screwed India) presented history to the world in their perspective ...which is BS like we were mighty,great, people prospered etc.
adi B Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Now I've heard it all,Mughals being called great,mughal rule called as the golden period!! They plundered most of the wealth in india,carried out mass massacres,conversions,rape and in the end get glorified because some fools blindly believe what's written in our history books
Raghav_12 Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 From discussions it seems that people are confusing betwaan usage of words in context of discussion on History. In historical sense, a title of great is used very rarely and I have read being used prominently only for few like Alexander, Ashoka and Akbar etc. In historical context a word great is used very rarely unlike Danny Morrison or Mbangwa's commentory of IPL. From that perspective I don't think Maharana Pratap can be called a great. On the other hand historical heroes are used rather generously. You have so many figures whom you may call your heroes for various qualitieis they exhibited. Number of historical heroes is unlimted and it's your choice whom you may call hero. For Rajouts of Rajasthan Maharana Pratap would definitely be counted as the one of their biggest hero ever. Personally to me as well Maharana Pratap was bigger hero than Akbar but I can't ignore historical realities un bestowing a title of Great on him.
Khalpat Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 I agree with Raghav, the title Great has nothing to do with how good or bad the ruler in person was it is about how much land he was able to conquer and rule over. If any hindu ruler is to be given this title then it should be Samudragupta and Chandragupta Vikramaditya, The great Gupta king who has never lost a battle in his whole life. Samudragupta and his son Chandragupta II ushered the golden age of India. They instituted a proper currency system through his minted gold coins. Under their rule India's science & art reached its peak.
mishra Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Holy crap. Just received a email from Mohammad Aurangzeb. Apparently he is based in Banglore.
singhprakash72 Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 Now I've heard it all,Mughals being called great,mughal rule called as the golden period!! They plundered most of the wealth in India,carried out mass massacres,conversions,rape and in the end get glorified because some fools blindly believe what's written in our history books Mughal period till Shah Jahan was not exactly bad for India as a whole but the rut started with his demise and Aurangzeb who forced principles of radical Islam in practice which in the process antagonized Marathas, Jats, Sikhs. In the end the only group that could have united India and saved from British, would have been Marathas, even though Tipu Sultan in south and Sikhs in North west had good presence.
Yoda-esque Posted May 21, 2015 Posted May 21, 2015 Mughal period till Shah Jahan was not exactly bad for India as a whole but the rut started with his demise and Aurangzeb who forced principles of radical Islam in practice which in the process antagonized Marathas, Jats, Sikhs. In the end the only group that could have united India and saved from British, would have been Marathas, even though Tipu Sultan in south and Sikhs in North west had good presence. Not bad isn't good. You have to remember that almost all the population lived in extreme poverty.
singhprakash72 Posted May 22, 2015 Posted May 22, 2015 Not bad isn't good. You have to remember that almost all the population lived in extreme poverty. I don't have data to support but just going by rough GDP numbers India was richest economy till 17th century (which doesn't mean absence of disparity) the other factor I will point to is famines became a norm after 17th century with local artisans losing jobs to English factory and India becoming totally a agrarian based economy depending on monsoons. Also with no infrastructure for finished goods the development seized and obsolete technology gave away to huge disparity with rich landlords and non existent middle class. So overall poverty may have existed in Mughal era but it got exacerbated with dawn of British rule from which India could never recover.
The Outsider Posted May 30, 2015 Posted May 30, 2015 The absurdity and lack of historical context displayed in the thread is astounding even by RSS loony standards. Why is Ashoka called great when he was responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people including civilians?
Malcolm Merlyn Posted May 30, 2015 Posted May 30, 2015 The absurdity and lack of historical context displayed in the thread is astounding even by RSS loony standards. Why is Ashoka called great when he was responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people including civilians? Why is Alexander called Great? Why is Akbar called Great?
.svg.png.5ab3ce86b8af4a762132502c85a350db.thumb.png.8a4574a4556391f1df10aa68196a2ab0.png)
Recommended Posts