• >
    >காவியமா, நெஞ்சின் ஓவியமா???????????????????
    >>*So much for the 'eternal' love!!
    >>>*We all know TAJ MAHAL as symbol of 'LOVE', but lesser known facts are:-
    >>>1. Mumtaz was Shahjahan's 4th wife out of his 7 wives. (Great!)
    >>>2. Shahjahan killed Mumtaz's husband to marry her. (Excellent!!)
    >>>3. Mumtaz died during her 14th delivery. (Outstanding!!!)
    >>>4. After her death, Shahjahan married Mumtaz's sister. (Amazing!!!!)
    >>>Where the hell was 'Love'??!!*
    > veegopalji
    > [courtesy : MVG]
  • Swami Vivekananda said
    "Man is the Taj Mahal of God's Creations " !!!
    Rabindranath Tagore called Taj Mahal
    "A tear drop on the cheek of eternity"
    Shah Jahan was not like Barbarious Mughals who were his predecessors.
    His son Dara Shikoh was even more illustrious scholar and it is country's misfortune that he did not become the Emperor.
    Let us not berate a great monument ..
  • --- Tajmahal was to be dismantled and taken to England. Due to some financial crisis they stopped it.

    People need such monuments/stories. More than History and facts - people like fictions.

    Once during our Lunch my collegues asked me about Big Temple.

    When i told them that - No shadow falling - No Idli Patti and No single piece rock at top- No sarap pallam etc etc - they were all disappointed.

    Let the stories live

    See the link below



    காவியமா, நெஞ்சின் ஓவியமா???????????????????

    *3. Mumtaz died during her 14th delivery. (Outstanding!!!)

    4. After her death, Shahjahan married Mumtaz's sister. (Amazing!!!!)

    Where the hell was 'Love'??!!*

    [courtesy : MVG]
  • We are talking only about a "monument for a lady love" and the question is "where is
    love" when so much have happened ? Nothing to lament on the creation but it
    is about the creator !

  • Shah Jehan acknowledged the Hindu genius when he famously wrote
    to his son Auragazeb who blocked all the water access to the Agra Fort.
    He wrote to him that Hindus offer water to the dead fathers but you have blocked even water to your father !!!!
    He supported the candidature of his son Dara Shikoh against Aurangazeb and had to pay heavily for this.
    I need not tell about Aurangazeb, but Dara was a great philosopher and scholar.
    He was instrumental in translating upanishads,yoga vasisthaand ancient Indian literary works to persian language.
    His love for Mumtaz Mahal is legendary and the solitary confinement of his cell at Agra Fort from where the Taj is visible is a standing witness to this.
    It is that is why Tagore wrote as
    "A tear drop on the cheek of eternity" !!!!!!!!!!
    Unimaginable context but possible only for a great poet..
  • The counsel of Shahjahan is not acceptable to the "Court of Love". The case dismissed !

  • I think you're trying to apply modern morality to a Mughal emperor, which
    is unfair to both.

    First, we're on the Ponniyin Selvan group, right? What would you say about
    the double-handful of wives the Chola emperors had? Rajaraja himself had
    something like 20, as I recall... This was just the common practice of the

    There are two reasons that kings of those times had multiple wives. The
    first is the line of succession; even in this century, the crown princess
    of Japan was pretty much driven to depression by pressure to produce a male
    heir. In an era where the child mortality rate was something like 30%, not
    to mention the maternal mortality rate, this was one strategy to ensure the
    continuity of the line.

    The second is diplomacy. It's incredible how many empires were built or
    stabilized by marriages. The Mughals were no exception to this rule either.
    They intermarried with their own courtiers to check their ambitions, and
    with other monarchs to maintain friendly relations (ahem)...

    But Shah Jahan's case is interesting - he married thrice, according to
    Wikipedia; to "Akbarabadi Mahal" and "Kandahari Mahal", each of whom had
    one child by him. And to Mumtaz, who had 14 children... I think that proves
    chronicler, the relationship with his other wives "had nothing more than
    the status of marriage. The intimacy, deep affection, attention and favour
    which His Majesty had for the Cradle of Excellence (Mumtaz) exceeded by a
    thousand times what he felt for any other." Remember, this isn't a later
    invention - this is eyewitness testimony! And she was the one entrusted
    with his imperial seal - which meant she could issue *his* commands, which
    is not a privilege the other two wives had (or indeed, anyone else except
    Dara and Aurangzeb during his later years).

    I think it's safe to say that he loved her quite deeply and truly.

    But now, I've really got to question the motivation of this line of
    thought. First of all, the original "points" are all flawed! Fourth of 7
    wives? I can't find more than three... Killed her husband? Um, she was
    betrothed to him at age fourteen (and he was 15), they were married five
    years later (apparently some astrology thing - his other marriages were in
    the intervening years). Married her sister? Fact not in evidence! Only one
    of that collection that's true is that she died giving birth to her 14th
    child, a fact that could easily be taken as meaning that she was the only
    one of the three whom Shah Jahan truly loved...

    All this is something that can be ascertained in about 3 minutes on the
    web; why do we make up stories like this?

    I wonder at the political and ethnic motivations behind this diatribe...


    On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:55 PM, vancheeswaran gopal
  • 1. People like such stories.
    2. People like to believe stories like Thanjavur vimana shadow dosenot fall below - Idli Patti's stone etc.

    Enjoy this post - This is what people want:


    i liked this one -கிராமத்து ஜனங்களுக்கு கேரளவரலாறு பற்றி ஒன்றும் தெரியாது. ஏனென்றால் அவர்களுக்கு தமிழ்நாட்டு வரலாறு பற்றியும் ஒன்றும் தெரியாது
  • Under what law, "your honor"?

    [image: Inline image 1]

    On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, vancheeswaran gopal
  • We are not talking of history here. I am still thinking that "eternal love" has
    a differentmeaning from what we hearand read of Shahjahan !  No doubt
    most, if not, all thekings were like this andhad tocompromise their doings
    at some point for this or that to stay intheir position !  

    There cannot be any second opinion on "Taj Mahal" but I do hope that
    you willappreciate the charges raised when it comes to "real love" !
    So far.... bye !

  • So, the charge is that his love doesn't meet your standards of love - which
    is apparently defined as "something Shah Jahan didn't do..."

    How can we not be talking of history when we're discussing eminently
    historical figures? Unless that is, you somehow met the Mughal yesterday
    and asked him or something...

    I answered every single one of your points - showed them to be completely
    wrong, in fact. Yet you still hold to your pre-conclusion that what they
    had wasn't "real love" (or "eternal love" - is there any love, indeed any
    other emotion, you'd care to call eternal sir?) and therefore...

    Actually, I'm not too sure of your "therefore" either - it just seems to be
    slander aimed at something you don't like.


    On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:53 AM, vancheeswaran gopal
  • I am sorry brother, I don't mean to hurt you ! I have been regularly reading
    your mails. I hold you in high esteem. Don't feel bad about what I said.
    I just wrote what I felt.

  • Do you know that :

    1. Kulothunga Chola had an "Anukki" who was close to him -He visited Kanchi with both Maharani and gave a Major Grant to Ulagalanthap Perumal.

    2. Jadavarman Sundra Pandian had a Thalichcherip Pendu as his queen.
  • My feelings don't come into it... I'm not personally hurt.

    But nevertheless, what you wrote was incorrect and I had to correct it.
    I've seen this topic come up again and again, with the similar incorrect
    "facts" quoted every time.

    If you want to search for reasons to dislike the Mughals, you really don't
    have to look far. I mean, after all, Shah Jahan is the father who produced
    Aurangzeb with all his passions and cruelties, just to name one.

    Let's not use falsehoods in these matters...


    On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:48 AM, vancheeswaran gopal
  • mumtaz was not married before she married shah jahan and it was jahangir who indirectly killed noorjahans first husband by sending him to fight in the afghan front inorder to marry her. it was not the custom of husbands to erect monuments in remembrance of their wives( humayuns wife built humayuns tomb but it has never happened viceversa)so tajmahal tells us there was much more than ordinary relationship between both of them again i agree this relationship was more romanticised by the british

  • Killers are killers and I think none of the Indian Kings did this !
  • Nandini, Vira Pandiyan, Aditya Karikalan -?
  • On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, vancheeswaran gopal
  • Asoka and his cousin?
  • He was not Bhudhist when he killed his cousin.
  • I am asking whether the Indian kings killed other Indian kings for the sake of women alone ?
  • In a slightly reversed way, Prithviraj and Jaichand was pretty much that...
    Not killing his rival, but getting his daughter's suitor killed because he
    didn't approve of him.

    I'm sure there are outright examples; quite a few wouldn't get publicized
    except by their enemies...

    On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:48 AM, vancheeswaran gopal
  • I think the context was killing the husband to marry the wife.
    Karikalan even talks of killing Peria Pazhvettarayar and taking Nandini
    to a foreign land; or converting to a different religion in which
    marrying another's wife is permitted. Nandini asserts her loyalty to her
    lawfully wedded husband and is ready to marry him only in their next
    birth. (all Kalki's words)Sampath
  • All the kings were barbarians, cutting across regions but the question is whether any
    of these - likePeriya Pazhuvettarayar or Aadithya Karikaalan or Veerapaandiyan build
    any memorial for a kidnappedwife ?

  • All the kings were barbarians is a sweeping generalisation that
    can never be accepted.
    Kings like Shivaji, Rana Pratap,Rana Sanga,Krishnadevaraya,Martanda Varma,Prithviraj Chauhan,Maharaja Ranjit Singhare Heroes who can never fit intothe meaning of the word barbarian.
    Kings like Kochenganan,Cheraman Perumal, Kulasekara are Nayanmars and Alwars.
    Shri Ramachandra has been hailed by all the great poets of India
    as the Ideal Ruler.
    Few Barbarians , anti social elements, thugs, criminals who get power due to destiny like Babar,Akbar,Khilji and others have been in existence right from the time when Parasurama took up the axe till today.

    Kidnapped wifes , adultery has been happening even before the times of Ahalya and Indra (who continues to be devaraja !)
    and the trait is common to all human communities including those in India.Good and Bad exist in all human communities.
    The pride of India is that it recognises this fact and does not accept any racial, relgious superirity.
    The pride of India is that Dharma is supreme irrespective of the Man, creed or the race.
    That is why Sai Baba who is a Muslim Fakir has his dargah in a Hindu Temple to be worshipped by Millions who accept his words
    Sabka Malik ek hai !
  • The Kings you mentioned did not practice "Ahimsa" I believe ! Then
    why there is religiousdemarcation between the Kings ? All the kings
    are barbariansonly as long as they kill people ! You may call it in thousand
    names like "Kshatriya Dharma" orso, but a killer is always a killer whether
    it is Sivaji or Akbar ! So whatisthe big deal?

  • What are you saying sir ?
    Are our param veer chakra holders barbarians ?
    You must be placed along with Kasab in Taj Hotel Mumbai to make
    you understand the difference between Ajmal Kasab and
    Sandeep Unnikrishnan.
    Utterly poor understanding of Dharma ,history.
  • Dear sirs,,,

    In between all these discussions, could anyone explain, what is exactly meant by the term barbarians .
  • Dear Friends,

    Dharma, is a relative term. and is defined based on time and society.
    There is no absolute set of rules. A simple approach is to have "Do onto others what you want others do onto you" as a basis and everything else is loosely derived out of it.

    Even in our tradition dharma is not some set of Do's and Don'ts. Though we do have documents such as Manu Dharma etc.. they are also confined to a temporal context.

    What appears 'barbarious' now, might have been perfectly normal at a certain point in time. Times change and so also the ways of the society and culture change.

    Battles, war, killing, and invasion was the norm. and there was a 'dharma' within that! one might wonder what is so dharmic about killing. It is a very fascinating and intriguing piece of life. Aggression, expansion and territorial obsessions were part of society. Today we see it increasingly in the business domain. Expansions, take overs, mergers, Monopolies and the likes involve lots of strategies and tactics much akin to a battle or war. and "heads" do roll. don't they?

    The conflict appears when we somehow think the dharma of today is the "right" dharma. Though we do strive for a peaceful and happy and inclusive society, we can never say this is the "right" dharma. We can say this is "today's' dharma. and it appears right today. There will always be room for evolution. and you cannot rule out the case that a future generation will look upon us as "barbaric" in some sense.

    Killing is violence. But even a mental abuse is also equally violence. "Theeyinaar suttapun Ullarum, Aaradhe Navinaal sutta vadu". Today we do see verbal and mental abuse. Do we take it as "Ok" because it is not killing? So, as you see these are very relative.

    When we try to apply/compare across eras, there will be conflict.
    So, we need to get an awareness of the dharma of the particular times and society to appreciate the merits and demerits of individuals within that context.

    Just Thought I will add my little understanding of dharma. I am sure very knowledgeable people here will have some wonderful insights that I am eager to look at.
  • shashwath sir - thanks for your clarification...
    dear sirs,

    As Itried to find what it exactly meant....

    I found some different words from various sources....

    the Wordweb Dictionary gives:

    Barbarians :
    1. A member of an uncivilized people
    2. A crude uncouth ill-bred person lacking culture or

    feel that,While
    deal with, the some centuries earlier people of India, the term Barbarian is
    enitirely different from the above concepts…

    Wikipedia page elaborates more about these barbarian people,
    some details given in the above
    page according to Hindu Culture,
    The Hindus anciently referred to foreignpeople as Mlechchaor Mlechchha " dirty
    ones; barbarians."[25][26]The Aryans used mleccha much
    like the ancient Greeks used barbaros, " originally to indicate the
    uncouth and incomprehensible speech of foreigners and then extended to their
    unfamiliar behavior."[27]In the ancient texts, Mlechchasare people who are dirty and who
    have given up the Vedicbeliefs. Today this term implies
    those with bad hygiene.[28][29]Among the tribes termed Mlechcha
    were Sakas, Hunas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Bahlikasand Rishikas.[28]
    ( Ithink,this term originated from the Greek's Barbaros.... )

    The term Barbarians, comparing
    with the scholars words with ref. to Google Books….
     Almost all the scholarssays "the
    Barbarians are the Mlecchas and Mlecchas
    are not following the vedic rituals….

    1. Researches
    into the history and civilization of the Kirātas - Page 80
    books.google.com.sg G. P. Singh- 2008 - 572 pages - Preview
    A considerable section of the non-Aryan Kirata tribes were also of mlecchaorigin or mleccharace. The image of the Kiratas as barbariansor mlecchasemerged mainly in the post-Gupta period, ...
    2. Mlecchasin early India: a study in attitudes
    towards outsiders ...
    books.google.com.sg Aloka Parasher-Sen- 1991 - 350 pages - Snippet view
    Vincent Smith,68 in his Oxford History of India, has noted: 'everybody else who disregards Hindu dharma is an "outer barbarian" (mleccha) no matter how exalted his worldly rank or how vast his wealth may be.' This statement implies that ...
    3. Ancient
    Indian Social History: Some Interpretations - Page 138
    books.google.com.sg Romila Thapar- 1978 - 396 pages - Preview
    The word most frequency used in Sanskrit to describe the barbarianis mleccha. Attempts nave been made to derive the etymology of the word from the root vac speech, hence one who is not familiar with the ...
    4. The
    First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra - Page 34
    books.google.com.sg Roger Boesche- 2003 - 127 pages - Preview
    It is possible that Kautilya and the Mauryan kings did not regard those outside of these "natural" borders of India worth conquering, because they were "barbarians," or mlecchas, who did not speak a proper language and were hopelessly ...
    5. Kiratas
    in ancient India
    books.google.com.sg G. P. Singh, G. P. Singh- 1990 - 506 pages - Snippet view
    mleccharace. The image of the Kiratas as barbariansor mlecchasemerged mainly in the post-Gupta period, though we have some vague references to this effect in the literary texts composed anterior to this period also.
    6. Nirvana
    and Other Buddhist Felicities: Utopias of the Pali Imaginaire - Page 48
    books.google.com.sg Steven Collins- 1998 - 684 pages - Preview
    Early Pali texts distinguish languages and persons as driya (as in “Indo-Aryan”) or aviriridtara-milakkha, “incomprehensible” or “uncomprehending barbarians.” Skt mleccha, like Greek barbaros (and Skt barbara /varvara) , “barbarian,” is ...
    More editions
    7. Personal
    and Geographical Names in the Gupta - Page 151
    books.google.com.sg- Preview
    Mleccha occurs in the Satapatha Brahmana in the sense of a barbarianin speech.
    8. Studies
    in the KÄÅikÄvá1tti. the Section on PratyÄhÄras: Critical ... - Page 228
    books.google.com.sg Pascale Haag, Vincenzo Vergiani - 2011 - 274 pages - Preview
    It would be absurd to suppose that ancient orthodox authors did not pay their homage to a deity when even barbarianpeople (mlecchas) do it] namaskarad eva vighnopasamah, karmarambhe sadbhir niyamena tasyopadanat. na ca ...
    9. Indian
    Political Thought
    books.google.com.sg Dr. U.S. Pandey- Preview
    In short, India did not include the land of “ barbarians ” or mlecchas, those outside of Indian culture. Cakra means wheel; it is possible that the Indian concept of the world conqueror involved someone who ruled as far as his chariots ...
    10.  When
    jesus lived in india
    books.google.com.sg Alan Jacobs- Preview
    Salivahana then established the boundaries dividing the separate countries of the Mlecchas(Barbariansor Non-Hindus) and the Aryans. In this way Sindusthan came to be known as the greatest country. He established the Kingdom of the ...
  • A cruel, savage, brutal person ; one destitute of pity or humanity!!!
  • Perhaps you have not seen what a real war will look like ! I have 
    seen much worse things than what you talk of Taj Hotel Mumbai !

  • I have been in Mumbai during bomb blasts.
    You need not make assumptions on my experience.
    I respect and know the valour , civildiscipline of our armed forces.
    Even a man like Mahatma Gandhi whowas an incarnation of
    Ahimsa, himself praised the Polish army when defending the onslought
    of German Forces.
    He praised Jayaprakash Narayan, Bhagat Singh and Netaji Bose
    saying that he may disagree with their method but had the highest
    regards for their bravery, sacrifice and patriotism.
    Param Veer Chakra Havaldar Abdul Hameed, Sandeep Unnikrishnan
    and many others sacrifced their lives to defend the sanctity of our
    If you cant show respect to these people, please dont insult them by saying barbarian and other stuff.
  • My dear friend, you should understand that defence is also a form of
    offence,the other way around ! We are talking on general terms on
    killing humans, whoever it be !
  • This is why criminal law is best left in the hands of lawyers and
    judges who know the difference between premeditated murder, self
    defence, following orders, collateral damage, accidental death and
    crimes of passion.

    To talk about such topics in "general terms" is so hopelessly naive!


    On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM, vancheeswaran gopal

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Top Posters