Lesser known facts of Indian history - Shivaji Maharaj was indeed the greatest of all!

rambabu wrote:

Who are these Muslims and English but invaders ? History Books are written by British Historians eulogizing Muslims and English. The sycophant Indian rulers for the sake of titles like Rai Bahadur danced to the tunes of British Historians,.

Shivaji believed in driving away these invaders, though he ruled a small region. It's his strong desire to conquer Aurangazeb and other Mughals whose atrocities  against Hindus were in excesses. Despite his limitations, Shivaji with his strong will fought against Mughals. None can rob away his greatness.

 

True that Books of History were then written by English writers and after independence for many years there was a single ruling party in India who was in center government and edited the History books accordingly.

Many club British with Muslim rulers to give the impression that Muslims were outsiders. The fact is that most of us are descendants of foreigners.  The only original inhabitants are the tribal and Dravidian.  It is totally wrong to describe the medieval era as foreign rule.  It is this perverted thinking that made the RSS/ VHP  functionaries state that Modi is first Hindu ruler after Shivaji.  The British never adopted or treated India as their own country. The British Indian government functioned under guidance and control of Great Britain. The Governor General was appointed by British Government in London.  India was never home to British people unlike Muslims who adopted and treated India as their own. Most Muslim rulers were born in India and were Indian in true sense. To dub them as foreigner is just a trick to attack secular ideals and promote so called Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra. 

This thread is about Shivaji who opposed massacre of Hindus perpetrated by the Mughals starting from Akbar to Aurangzeb. Is it a crime to oppose and fight tooth and nail to put an end to Hindu massacre ?

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

Many club British with Muslim rulers to give the impression that Muslims were outsiders. The fact is that most of us are descendants of foreigners.  The only original inhabitants are the tribal and Dravidian.  It is totally wrong to describe the medieval era as foreign rule.  It is this perverted thinking that made the RSS/ VHP  functionaries state that Modi is first Hindu ruler after Shivaji.  The British never adopted or treated India as their own country. The British Indian government functioned under guidance and control of Great Britain. The Governor General was appointed by British Government in London.  India was never home to British people unlike Muslims who adopted and treated India as their own. Most Muslim rulers were born in India and were Indian in true sense. To dub them as foreigner is just a trick to attack secular ideals and promote so called Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra. 

While it makes sense that muslim rulers though they were invaders, did adapt to India , many of them were never tolerant with Hindu religion and this is a fact that is learnt in History lessons.They converted forcibly .A few like Akbar were more tolerant realising that force did not work. To bring out this truth is not wrong since Bharat has always been a Hindu Rashtra since the times of Mahabharat , so no point in denying it and also whitewashing the mughal rule which was anything but secular ..

Unfortunately, history of our country has mostly been written to please the rulers of the relevant times. For more than ten centuries, we were slave to the foreign aggressors and even today, though being politically free, we are still fond of going through the books written by the foreign historians. If we go through the old structures and make research, we can find out some more details about the glorious past overlooked so far. We need to rewrite our history.

Our History Books should be rewritten. Somewhere I read, Akbar is not as tolerant towards Hindus as written in History Books written by Foreign Historians. In Chittorgarh war Akbar ordered to massacre thousands of Rajput Prisoners of war including women and children. Please correct me Gulatiji if I'm wrong.

usha manohar wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

Many club British with Muslim rulers to give the impression that Muslims were outsiders. The fact is that most of us are descendants of foreigners.  The only original inhabitants are the tribal and Dravidian.  It is totally wrong to describe the medieval era as foreign rule.  It is this perverted thinking that made the RSS/ VHP  functionaries state that Modi is first Hindu ruler after Shivaji.  The British never adopted or treated India as their own country. The British Indian government functioned under guidance and control of Great Britain. The Governor General was appointed by British Government in London.  India was never home to British people unlike Muslims who adopted and treated India as their own. Most Muslim rulers were born in India and were Indian in true sense. To dub them as foreigner is just a trick to attack secular ideals and promote so called Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra. 

While it makes sense that muslim rulers though they were invaders, did adapt to India , many of them were never tolerant with Hindu religion and this is a fact that is learnt in History lessons.They converted forcibly .A few like Akbar were more tolerant realising that force did not work. To bring out this truth is not wrong since Bharat has always been a Hindu Rashtra since the times of Mahabharat , so no point in denying it and also whitewashing the mughal rule which was anything but secular ..

sir you said that most of us are foreigners. Please tell me from where we came in this country. Which is our native place?

rambabu wrote:

Our History Books should be rewritten. Somewhere I read, Akbar is not as tolerant towards Hindus as written in History Books written by Foreign Historians. In Chittorgarh war Akbar ordered to massacre thousands of Rajput Prisoners of war including women and children. Please correct me Gulatiji if I'm wrong.

Massacre and insult of women was very common act of winners. It is not possible to rewrite history.

 

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

Many club British with Muslim rulers to give the impression that Muslims were outsiders. The fact is that most of us are descendants of foreigners.  The only original inhabitants are the tribal and Dravidian.  It is totally wrong to describe the medieval era as foreign rule.  It is this perverted thinking that made the RSS/ VHP  functionaries state that Modi is first Hindu ruler after Shivaji.  The British never adopted or treated India as their own country. The British Indian government functioned under guidance and control of Great Britain. The Governor General was appointed by British Government in London.  India was never home to British people unlike Muslims who adopted and treated India as their own. Most Muslim rulers were born in India and were Indian in true sense. To dub them as foreigner is just a trick to attack secular ideals and promote so called Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra. 

While it makes sense that muslim rulers though they were invaders, did adapt to India , many of them were never tolerant with Hindu religion and this is a fact that is learnt in History lessons.They converted forcibly .A few like Akbar were more tolerant realising that force did not work. To bring out this truth is not wrong since Bharat has always been a Hindu Rashtra since the times of Mahabharat , so no point in denying it and also whitewashing the mughal rule which was anything but secular ..

sir you said that most of us are foreigners. Please tell me from where we came in this country. Which is our native place?

Such distorted facts that we are all foreigners is unacceptable. Our Country is Bharat and we are all the inhabitants of this sacred country.

 

rambabu wrote:

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

Many club British with Muslim rulers to give the impression that Muslims were outsiders. The fact is that most of us are descendants of foreigners.  The only original inhabitants are the tribal and Dravidian.  It is totally wrong to describe the medieval era as foreign rule.  It is this perverted thinking that made the RSS/ VHP  functionaries state that Modi is first Hindu ruler after Shivaji.  The British never adopted or treated India as their own country. The British Indian government functioned under guidance and control of Great Britain. The Governor General was appointed by British Government in London.  India was never home to British people unlike Muslims who adopted and treated India as their own. Most Muslim rulers were born in India and were Indian in true sense. To dub them as foreigner is just a trick to attack secular ideals and promote so called Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra. 

While it makes sense that muslim rulers though they were invaders, did adapt to India , many of them were never tolerant with Hindu religion and this is a fact that is learnt in History lessons.They converted forcibly .A few like Akbar were more tolerant realising that force did not work. To bring out this truth is not wrong since Bharat has always been a Hindu Rashtra since the times of Mahabharat , so no point in denying it and also whitewashing the mughal rule which was anything but secular ..

sir you said that most of us are foreigners. Please tell me from where we came in this country. Which is our native place?

Such distorted facts that we are all foreigners is unacceptable. Our Country is Bharat and we are all the inhabitants of this sacred country.

Of course, we are all Indians and India is our country. As I wrote in an earlier post, India is a melting pot of different ethnic races that came from outside.  All mingled and lost their separate identity. Only British remained outsiders and went back to their native place after our independence. The comment that only Dravidian and tribal are original inhabitants of this country is just a retort to those who talk of thousand years of slavery and consider only Hindus as Indians and wish to send all non Hindus to Pakistan or elsewhere.    

 

 

With all said and done Shivaji as the Hindu ruler who fought the mighty Mughals with his limitations to drive away the invaders who directed all their endeavors to crush Hindus. Shivaji remains in the folios of History as the greatest savior of Hinduism.

People may go hoarse justifying Muslim rule saying they are part od India blah blah but the truth is something else and since time immemorial there has been Bharat which was a Hindu nation which was invcaded by the outsider Mughals and the British, the Portugese and even the French..

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/bharat-vs-india-one-nation-two-names/article5717280.ece

If Mughals and Ghaznis are not invaders, what are they? They are our friends. Whoever said Muslims are not invaders, they are arguing for argument sake sans sense.

If one sleeps with doors of the house open, should the thief only be  blamed for robbing?

Yes. There was a golden era when people used to sleep keeping doors open without fear. Later when Bandicoots started entering from the neighboring areas and eating away the granaries , people not only killed the Bandicoots but closed their doors once and for all.

There was never an era when people slept keeping their doors open,

May be. That's your opinion. You are entitled for one

vijay wrote:

There was never an era when people slept keeping their doors open,

I agree. There was never an era when there was no king or police. If everything goes well without anybody committing crimes, there would be no police and probably no king. 

Shani nagar a village in the Indian state of Maharashtra is famous for two things. One is for its temple and another one is no house in the village has doors. Despite this no theft was reported in the village.

rambabu wrote:

Shani nagar a village in the Indian state of Maharashtra is famous for two things. One is for its temple and another one is no house in the village has doors. Despite this no theft was reported in the village.

I also saw this fact on TV. But it appears that there is some belief about bad consequences to the thief, which is deterring factor.