You're not getting my point... Forget the public relations and look at the facts for a while...
Shahaji, Shivaji's father, was a son of a Jagirdar of the Adil Shahis of Bijapur, which itself was a splinter Sultanate of the Bahamani state, a vassal of a Muslim ruler. Like any other ruler, he longed to be independent, and on that account, allied himself with and against Bijapur, Ahmednagar and the Mughal Empire. He sheltered Shah Jahan during his conflict with Jahangir, and later fought Shah Jahan himself. He fought against the Hindu, Kempe Gowda, in alliance with the Muslim, Adil Shah of Bijapur, because that further increased his power.
the sivaji portrayed in popular culture was so different from reality
he certainlky would have succeeded if aurangazeb didnt out live him but he should have been happy that the marathas finally became " the protector of the mughal emperor" even then 1857 they accepted bahadur sha zafar as their leader
sivaji was a very flexible ruler and bent when the mughal as strong and stiffened when they were weak, the mughals really used him as a buffer against the southern sultanates.
The Mughals and Delhi Sultanate were tyrants, criminals and anti social elementswho were in power including Akbar.They had murdered Sufi,Sikh and Hindu saints without any sense of sinwhatsoever.Compare this to Prithviraj Chauhan's pardoning Mohammed Gori after his defeat.The marauder returned back to finish him off.Akbar ordered the execution of 30,000 rajputs after capturing Chitor.Nothing but cold blooded murder.He even imposed JaziyaHe removed Jaziya when he felt he had to appease the Hindus dueto a great man's defiance- Maharana Pratap.He renamed Prayag as Allahabad.Demolished a Temple built by Man Singh.All this have bought to him the name Akbar the Great !!!!!!!!!!Shivaji fought against Hindus when he found they were serving the cause ofTyrants.When Sambaji joined Aurangazeb's army for a brief time, the Maratas opened their fortswhen he attacked.Shivaji asked his army to defend the forts even ifSambaji his own son attacked.But he knew his limitations well and acted in accordance with it.Even Subash Chandra Bose attacked Gandhiji and went on to win the electionsin the congress.That does not mean he was ambitious to take over the organization and becomethe leader of Nation.He did it as a humble dedicated worked would do to the betterment of his people.Shivaji did the same thing. He was ambitious for the sake of his people.That is why Bushan, the Kavi present in Shivaji's court says.Regards,S.KarthikVandemataram
Its not some one writes and I quote.There were several historians including the very famous Will Durant who wrote."the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history"Islam means peace and is a great religion that taught to the world equality of man and man.But the mughals and delhi sultans were brothers in loot and rapine.They are an insult to Islam and the great religion that has produced outstanding humanists like Nazir Akbarabadi, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Dara Shikoh,Sarmad, Baba Farid, Mirza Galib.These people created the great culture of fusion between Islam and Hinduism and notcriminals like Akbar or Aurangazeb.Even Hitler was a great artist, his art does not dismiss his sins.Auranazeb was a bad ruler and Shivaji bowed to him temporarily as he reserved his prowess to hit it hard when the oppurtunity came, just like Mahatma Gandhi who refused to remove his turban at pretoria later removed it at the supreme court of south africa as he himself has saidhe wanted to save his energy for the future battles against the british. Regards,S.KarthikVandemataram
Hi karthik how do you think the subdued states would have viewed the cholas or the tamil invaders. for instance what does mahavamsa record on the chola invasion. it would be interesting to look.
It will be like equating modern islamic terror with the chidambaram's saffron terror. There are several accounts of mass murder of hindus by muslim rulers (perhaps these are creations of historians); are there any reported/ recorded instances of mass murder of muslims by hindus or hindus by hindus. Perhaps a compilation of known data will throw light on who did what and how big was the human catastrophy. Sampath
You're still not getting the point; it's not whether a particular act was kind or cruel. The question is whether you can tar everything that a person does with a single brush, and whether you can view history as black and white.
Hi History can stir up emotions line nothing else. thats why crafty politicians and conquerors try to rewrite it
history if uncoloured would be best. a record of our past. a pathmap for the future.
the mughals were deadly enemies of 2 races. the maratas and the sikhs. the two were the few who offerred real resisitance. even the rajputs had all but joined hands with the mughals by aurangazebs time. in another hundred years the battlefields were redrawns. the maratas had aligned with the mughals and the sikhs with the british. the final battles of 1857 of course ensured that the latter won.
The question is this, whether Shivaji did it for self glory and creating an empire ordid he act out of self respect.I believe that it is the latter.Why should Baji Prabu and comrades stand in between the enemy forces and shivaji togive him an escape sacrificing his life unless he believes here is a leader whoseneed is utmost importance to his people ?Why should Tanaji Malusare win Simhagad by losing his life for his leader ?Why should Gaga Bhatta rush from Benares to crown Shivaji ?When Tarabhai, daughter in law of Shivaji could invade Surat under the nose of Aurangazeb and leave him to just screaming ? What was that which inspired her ?It is a fact that self respect of Hindus went up and they saw in him a decisive deliverer. And the question of Aurangazeb's misrule. A person of extrordinary liberal nature like Jawaharlal Nehru saysthat "Aurangazeb had put the clock back and try to undermine the genius of the nation"And for this we need not verify with historians what he was doing.His own farmans have been clearly documented.http://www.aurangzeb.info/2008/06/exhibit-no_4802.html Somnath, Mathura, Benares, Prayag will speak volumes after volumes about the magnificient atrocities which he commited. Not just destruction of temples, check out the cruel way in which he put out the lives of very noble persons who did no harm to him like sufi sarmad and guru tegh bahadur.And ofcourse sambaji, dara shikoh and his other brothers got a good taste of his barbarianism.No one in the world will agree with the barbarian attack of Taliban on Bamiyan Buddha.What he did was very similar things. When the Chalukya Vikramaditya broke open the doors of Kanchi, the pallavan capital, was he doing things like this ?Or were the Good Arab kings doing things like this in Egypt.The Pyramids stand still tall. If the Phoneix nose is broken, blame it on the Napolean soldiers not the Arabs. Regards,S.KarthikVandemataram
The ones you are mentioning do not qualify for that. Ashoka, Samudra Gupta , Pandya burning all Govt buildings etc. Temples and educational institutions were never touched.
A Kshatrya gets a Kingdom only in 2 ways. Either by his birth right ( remeber a comitte going all the way to get Nandivarma Pallava- even from distant family branch) or by War & winning over. a kingdom.
The only one that qualifys the statement is the attack on Sringeri Mutt by a Maratha splinter group. After the loot which Tippusultan came to know very late - was a shocking inncident to him and sent his offer of support to the mutt. But the letter never reached the mutt as British captured/or bribed the messengers. This letters surfaced very late.
Some oher recorded one swhich is close to this are:
1. Vatapi burning by Narasimha Pallava
2. The Chalukyan records on Rajendra's conquest - A looser's version. But gives graphic detail on killing of innocent people.
Hence the said type of attacks were rare and resented by every one.
In Silappadikaram itself Cheran Senguttuvan was critisised by Chola and Pandya ( who took charge of Madurai after Nedunchezhian) for capturing Kanaka Vijayans who ran away from the battle field in disguise of rishis.
There are instances where described graphic details are very much elaborated, however I do not see a reference of massacre given in some epigraph, while studying Samudragupta, only two inscriptions of this emperor exists and one talks about extermination of few northern states and amalgamation into his empire. Now what does this extermination means? I my words it does not mean killing of innocent people, but yes it means killing in war probably. Why will a king kill innocent people when he has to get that region into his kingdom? Until there is hatred involved, thinking about such killings is a sin in my eyes. Massacre was done during Alexander's time as his own historians talked about such killings during his conquests and even condemn that. Killing was involved in Nadir Shah's attack as his sole aim was to loot, but massacre was not involved in Mughal's conquest as they became the people of this land and ruled like their own country. I will keep this point in my thoughts while studying other dynasties of India.
I am very confused why this thing is so important, don't you see mass murders these days? We need to understand the monarchical ruling first, its the duty of a king to defend and extend his kingdom. Now, which means he takes up is left to him though there are few means defined in various books like dharma-vijaya etc. What about Ashvamedha sacrifice, you left a horse in hope to become an emperor and someone opposes and he is not ready to accept your authority? Now as a king what will you do? All your religious scriptures are telling that doing Ashvamedha is the supreme thing a king can do, so will he be right in inflicting war upon the opposing king? Think.
History is the study of facts, for truth there are many other branches of science open for you.
Hi is one enemy better than another this interesting phenomenon happenned in the mughal- sikh- british trio
the sikhs were sorely defeated by the british, their king converted, their treasures transferred to the tower of london including the kohinoor.but they immidietly joined the army of the british. it is very clearly documented how the sikhs took great relish in tormenting the mughals who had tortured them a few centuries earlier. the sikhs were primarily responsible for the victory of the british in 1857
we will never never have definitive details on the civilian deaths in the past. the loser was busy adjusting to his slavery while the winner wrote the history.but it has to be realised it would have been universal in those times when life meant a little more than nothing.conquerors built pyramids of skulls, and once i think the euprates ran dark with the ink of the destroyed books of bagdadcivilian looting , slavery were all an added incventive for a prospective enlister in the armyvenketesh
OK, this topic seems to have accumulated 21 mails under this subject and 15 under the earlier one! And we've come far far away from where we started!
If we don't end it soon, we'll end up scaring everyone away, I think!
These questions aren't simple; there are, and will always be, disagreements about such things, so I suggest that we archive it for now, and maybe summarize the whole thing later.
Thirumangai Mannan - it is said that - took away not only the money ofNagai Bhuddha Vihara - but also the golden image of Buddha - The image tried its best to escape by shouting andflying - but its magical powers werenullified - and the image thought that it is rather better to become goldagainand accepted that with a slight murmur - this was used for Srirangam renovation - it is a popular story.
As far as Silappadhikaram capture is concerned - it is mentioned there itsellf that Cholas and Pandyas commented on that
Nandi built Parameswara Vinnagaram @ Vaiguntapperumal temple and Nandipura Vinnagaram @ Nadhan koil.
If Thirumangai needed money for a vishnu temple renovation - he would have asked/ordered Nandhi to do so. simillarly the pandyas of that period are also were calling them vaishnavaites.