What's new

Ranjit Singh : The Quintessential Indus Man

Are you Sindhi? In Pakistan... Kashmiri, Punjabis and Pushtuns have the best looking girlz and boyz.. this is the first time I am hearing Sindhis have best looking girlz.. :cheesy:

:D

Technically speaking Sindhi and Bouch gal are closer to Iranians compared to punjabis ,dont they ??

Personally speaking punjabi gals looks too masculine...sorry.

In india upper caste hindu gals(avg) of all states are good looking by ur fair and lovely standards..

U dont understand the caste genetics of india.So u are generalizing everyone.

In terms of skin color, in Hindu upper class families u'll every is divided some fair complexion members to not so fair complexioned looking members , each number going up and down depending on the location of the state,north , south or in between some where.

I'm the giving a celebrity south India family as example:

Dipika Padukun:


Her dad Prakash Padukun, a famous Badminton player :
a2066e97cdd519fe75c961270e2ec181.jpg
 
Last edited:
Now I am going to say something on the hope that it will be taken as a deduction based on every day thought. With due respect to all let me say this.

As today's T.T.P say that they are fighting to save Muslims and Islam, what does a common man on street think of them. U all know the answer.

in yester years some fought against mughal the ruler of the day, what would mughal sat the time think about those making trouble in the country, they would do the same as we in Pakistan are doing against T.T.P, fight them who are touble makers, and or get rid of them.

With due respect to all those Gurus and Pundits, they were conspiring against the Govt. at ther time and had to be dealt with the way such instances were dealt with, all times.

So this logic that Mughal were horible rulers and were converting people focibaly is fabrication of the wosrt kind and does not corolate with the facts about our history.

if some one is a trouble maker accoriding to the rule of law, u can call him saint or Pundit or Guru, if they break the Law and the rule of the Govt, they will face the consequences of being rebels against govt. of the day and will be dealt with force.
 
Last edited:
My reply doesnt mention ' Marathis on an average FAIRER than kashmiris and punjabis ' . The guy uses PESHWA as his Id n DP , he might be a chitpavan and thant might have made him make comment commending the good looks of Marathis . My only motive was to make you aware of the fact that chipavans are , well ----> :tup: :toast_sign:

Besides , the districts of the region ( Salt Range and Kahuta , Muree tehsils of RWP )of West Punjab that you have mentioned along with Attock and Mianwali are known to have a stock of good looking people . The moment you come south of Jhelum , there is not much difference between the Punjabi stock on either side . Personally , I only consider girls from Rawalpindi (amongst the Punjabis ) and adjoining areas of Hazara and Poonchh as 'something else' when it comes to facial features and skin texture beside skin color . ( I mean no offence to Other Punjabis ) . :no:
Here , I say that i find pindi girls better than other punjabi girls BUT that doesnt mean I might find a BONG or COORGI or GUJJU girl any less attractive .
What your statements imply is Beauty is associated with certain ethnicities owing to their color and features , which is RACIST !
Appreciating beauty , Physical beauty is no where your business contrary to whatever you might believe . Its just the assertion of stereotypes and narrow minded , ghettoised opinions ( that have sprung up from a sense of perceived under-achievement ) that we get from you .
Stay racist if you so please to :argh:

Whoa Whoa.....Dont bring me into this.....

Im not petty enought to get into skin color and race to prove superiority to individuals with complex issues.....
Ive always maintained that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....and I see beauty in every race

And its mindsets such as some samples here that give undue importance to the color of ones skin as a mark of superiority that lead to a handfew of "goray" taking over our country and eventually colonizing it.....Pathetic!!
 
Last edited:
Whoa Whoa.....Dont bring me into this.....

Im not petty enought to get into skin color and race to prove superiority to individuals with complex issues.....
Ive always maintained that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....and I eye see beauty in every race

And its mindsets such as some samples here that give undue importance to the color of ones skin as a mark of superiority that lead to a handfew of "goray" taking over our country and eventually colonizing it.....Pathetic!!

Peshawa, it is pathetic but that how it works in this world. I wish it did'nt but alas, it is true.
 
With due respect to all those Gurus and Pundits, they were conspiring against the Govt. at ther time and had to be dealt with the way such instances were dealt with, at all times.

So this logic that Mughal were horible rulers and were converting people focibaly is fabrication of the wosrt kind and does not corolate with the facts about our history.

if some one is a trouble maker accoriding to the rule of law, u can call him saint or Pundit or Guru, if they break the Law and the rule of the Govt, they will face the consequences of being rebels against govt. of the day and will be dealt with force.

Since when right of praciting one;s religions peacefully is trouble making,haan??

Unless its the Sharia imposed laws currently seen in SWAT valley where Taliban is asking Jajiya tax from non muslims.

Its wasn't law & order issue.
Akbar's reign didn't see any such trouble as the state law of his time was liberal in its outlook and charitable to non Muslims.

But everything changed once Aurenzob came to power .Even the loyal Rajput left him and maraths eat away him empire leading to gradual but relatively fast demise of moghul power after the of Aurenzob himself .
 
Since when right of praciting one;s religions peacefully is trouble making,haan??

Unless its the Sharia imposed laws currently seen in SWAT valley where Taliban is asking Jajiya tax from non muslims.

Its wasn't law & order issue.
Akbar's reign didn't see any such trouble as the state law of his time was liberal in its outlook and charitable to non Muslims.

But everything changed once Aurenzob came to power .Even the loyal Rajput left him and maraths eat away him empire leading to gradual but relatively fast demise of moghul power after the of Aurenzob himself .

The only Mughal ruler the Marathas despised was Aurangzeb.....
Marathas served as loyal Generals in the armies of the Mughals and even fought against Golconda rulers on the side of the Mughals....
 
Since when right of praciting one;s religions peacefully is trouble making,haan??

Unless its the Sharia imposed laws currently seen in SWAT valley where Taliban is asking Jajiya tax from non muslims.

Its wasn't law & order issue.
Akbar's reign didn't see any such trouble as the state law of his time was liberal in its outlook and charitable to non Muslims.

But everything changed once Aurenzob came to power .Even the loyal Rajput left him and maraths eat away him empire leading to gradual but relatively fast demise of moghul power after the of Aurenzob himself .

Since you are quoting from your saffron history book again, I must try and correct your version of history.

Its true that Aurangzeb wasn't the most tolerant of emperors but certainly his intolerance is exaggerated. He did re-introduce Jizya but apart from that there was hardly any anti-Hindu step taken by him. In fact many of his Generals were Rajputs/Hindus and so were his Diwans handling the empire's treasury and accounts. The very fact that his close administrative and military retinue comprised of Hindus belies the Saffron exaggeration that he was anti-Hindu.
 
Since you are quoting from your saffron history book again, I must try and correct your version of history.

Its true that Aurangzeb wasn't the most tolerant of emperors but certainly his intolerance is exaggerated. He did re-introduce Jizya but apart from that there was hardly any anti-Hindu step taken by him. In fact many of his Generals were Rajputs/Hindus and so were his Diwans handling the empire's treasury and accounts. The very fact that his close administrative and military retinue comprised of Hindus belies the Saffron exaggeration that he was anti-Hindu.

Uhhh.....Sorry bro....update on the history....Please read below....

There is a reason why Hindus took up arms against Mughal rule....Hindus lived peacefully under previous Mughal rulers that went as far as honoring hindu customs, taking hindu wives and even translating hindu scriptures.....Mughal rule was the zenith of Indian history with the best of both worlds living in one unified nation....But Aurangzeb changed all that.....:tdown:

Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records

Throughout the War of Succession, Aurangzeb had maintained that he was not interested in acquiring the throne and that his only object was to ward off the threat to Islam, which was inevitable in case Dara Shukoh came to power. Many, including his brother Murad, were deceived by this posture. After his formal accession in Delhi (5th June 1659) he posed as a defender of Islam who would rule according to the directions of the Shariat, and with the advice of the Clerics or Ulama for whom the doctrines, rules, principles and directives, as laid down and interpreted in the 7th and 8th century Arabia, Persia and Iraq, were inviolable and unchangeable in all conditions, in all countries, and for all times to come.

One of the main objectives of Aurangzeb's policy was to demolish Hindu temples. When he ordered (13th October 1666) removal of the carved railing, which Prince Dara Shukoh had presented to Keshava Rai temple at Mathura, he had observed 'In the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a temple', and that it was totally unbecoming of a Muslim to act like Dara Shukoh (Exhibit No. 6, Akhbarat, 13th October 1666). This was followed by destruction of the famous Kalka temple in Delhi (Exhibit No. 6, 7, 8, Akhbarat, 3rd and 12th September 1667).

In 1669, shortly after the death of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a general order was issued (9th April 1669) for the demolition of temples and established schools of the Hindus throughout the empire and banning public worship (Exhibit Nos. 9 & 10). Soon after this the great temple of Keshava Rai was destroyed (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Exhibit No. 12) and in its place a lofty mosque was erected. The idols, the author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri informs, were carried to Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by Begum Sahiba in order to be continually trodden upon, and the name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad. The painting (Exhibit No. 13) is thus no fancy imagination of the artist but depicts what actually took place.

This was followed by Aurangzeb's order to demolish the highly venerated temple of Vishwanath at Banaras (Persian text, Exhibit No. 11), Keshava Rai temple (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Persian Text, exhibit No. 12 and Painting, Exhibit No. 13), and of Somanatha (Exhibit No. 14).To save the idol of Shri Nathji from being desecrated, the Gosain carried it to Rajputana, where Maharana Raj Singh received it formally at Sihad village, assuring the priest that Aurangzeb would have to trample over the bodies of one lakh of his brave Rajputs, before he could even touch the idol (Exhibit No. 15)

Aurangzeb's zeal for temple destruction became much more intense during war conditions. The opportunity to earn religious merit by demolishing hundreds of temples soon came to him in 1679 when, after the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in the Kabul Subah, he tried to eliminate the Rathors of Marwar as a political power in Rajputana. But Maharana Raj Singh of Mewar, in line with the great traditions of his House, came out in open support of the Rathors.. This led to war with both Mewar and Marwar during which the temples built on the bank of Rana's lake were destroyed by his orders (Exhibit No. 23, Akhbarat 23rd December 1679) and also about three hundred other temples in the environs of Udaipur. (Exhibit No. 25, Text), including the famous Jagannath Rai temple built at a great cost in front of the Maharana's palace which was bravely defended by a handful of Rajputs (Exhibit Nos. 20, 21).

Not only this, when Aurangzeb visited Chittor to have a view of the famous fort, he ordered the demolition of 63 temples there which included some of the finest temples of Kumbha's time (Exhibit No. 22). From Marwar (in Western Rajasthan) alone were brought several cart-loads of idols which, as per Aurangzeb's orders, were cast in the yard of the Court and under the steps of Jama Masjid (Exhibit No. 19). Such uncivilized and arrogant conduct of the Mughal Emperor alienated Hindus for ever, though they continued to be tolerant towards his creed.

In June 1681, orders, in a laconic two-liner, were given for the demolition of the highly venerated Jagannath Temple in Orissa (Exhibit No. 24, Akhbarat, 1st June 1681). Shortly afterwards, in September 1682, the famous Bindu-Madhav temple in Banaras was also demolished as per the Emperor's orders (Exhibit No. 27, Akhbarat, Julus 26, Ramzan 20). On 1st September 1681, while proceeding to the Deccan, where his rebel son Prince Akbar, escorted by Durga Das Rathore, had joined Chhatrapati Shivaji's son, Shambhaji, thus creating a serious problem for him, Aurangzeb ordered that all the temples on the way should be destroyed. It was a comprehensive order not distinguishing between old and newly built temples (Exhibit No. 26, Akhbarat, Julus 25, Ramzan 18). But in the district of Burhanpur, where there were a large number of temples with their doors closed, he preferred to keep them as such, as the Muslims were too few in number in the district. (Exhibit No. 28, Akhbarat 13th October 1681). In his religious frenzy, even temples of the loyal and friendly Amber state were not spared, such as the famous temple of Jagdish at Goner near Amber (Exhibit Nos. 30, Akhbarat, 28th March and 14th May 1680). In fact, his misguided ardour for temple destruction did not abate almost up to the end of his life, for as late as 1st January 1705 we find him ordering that the temple of Pandharpur be demolished and the butchers of the camp be sent to slaughter cows in the temple precincts (Akhbarat 49-7).

The number of such ruthless acts of Aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been mentioned, supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of Aurangzeb's period and by such credible Persian sources as Maasir-i-Alamgiri.

In obedience to the Quranic injunction, he reimposed Jizyah on the Hindus on 2nd April 1679 (Exhibit No. 16), which had been abolished by Emperor Akbar in 1564, causing widespread anger and resentment among the Hindus of the country. A massive peaceful demonstration against this tax in Delhi, was ruthlessly crushed. This hated tax involved heavy economic burden on the vast number of the poor Hindus and caused humiliation to each and every Hindu (Exhibit No. 18). In the same vein, were his discriminatory measures against Hindus in the form of exemption of the Muslims from the taxes (Exhibit No. 31, Akhbarat 16th April 1667) ban on atishbazi and restriction on Diwali (Exhibit No. 32), replacement of Hindu officials by Muslims so that the Emperor's prayers for the welfare of Muslims and glory of Islam, which were proving ineffective, be answered (Exhibit Nos. 33, 34). He also imposed a ban on ziyarat and gathering of the Hindus at religious shrines, such as of Shitla Mata and folk Gods like Pir Pabu (Exhibit No. 35, Akhbarat 16th September 1667), another ban on their travelling in Palkis, or riding elephants and Arab-Iraqi horses, as Hindus should not carry themselves with the same dignity as the Muslims! (Exhibit No. 36). In the same vein came brazen attempts to convert Hindus by inducement, coercion (Exhibit No. 41) or by offering Qanungoship (Exhibit No. 44, 45, 46) and to honour the converts in the open Court. His personal directions were that a Hindu male be given Rs.4 and a Hindu female Rs.2 on conversion (Exhibit No. 43, Akhbarat 7th April 1685). “Go on giving them”, Aurangzeb had ordered when it was reported to him that the Faujdar of Bithur, Shaikh Abdul Momin, had converted 150 Hindus and had given them naqd (cash) and saropas (dresses of honour) (Exhibit No. 40, Akhbarat, 11th April 1667). Such display of Islamic orthodoxy by the State under Aurangzeb gave strength and purpose to the resistance movements such as of the Marathas, the Jats, the Bundelas and the Sikhs (Exhibit No. 46).
 
Peshwa bro, could you post a non-Indian reference? Though it seems to be quoting Mughal records, I'd much rather see western/neutral articles. I did try searching for it myself but couldn't find any that were detailed enough to satisfy my curiosity.

My understanding is that it seems like hegemonistic strategies were more his undoing rather than religious bigotry. Of course, a difference in religion, as was with the Marathas, the Jatts and the Sikhs did give an added filip to the rebellions.
 
Peshwa bro, could you post a non-Indian reference? Though it seems to be quoting Mughal records, I'd much rather see western/neutral articles. I did try searching for it myself but couldn't find any that were detailed enough to satisfy my curiosity.

My understanding is that it seems like hegemonistic strategies were more his undoing rather than religious bigotry. Of course, a difference in religion, as was with the Marathas, the Jatts and the Sikhs did give an added filip to the rebellions.

Bro...I highlighted the part specially for the readers of the forum....The source is evidence from Mughal records and even persian ones.....read below...Tho Ill try to find something more palatable for the skeptics
The site references all the sources....

"The number of such ruthless acts of Aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been mentioned, supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of Aurangzeb's period and by such credible Persian sources as Maasir-i-Alamgiri"

My take on the matter is, Aurangzeb as any other dictator/ruler was interested in power....he ruled with an iron hand and that was his right to do so being the ruler.....But when a majority of your population is not Islamic, especially your key allies and some top ranking generals, then one has to be sensitive about matters.....Aurangzeb didnt give a crap and thats what brought his downfall and that of the Mughals.....
Revolt was inevitable.....
 
Last edited:
Now I am going to say something on the hope that it will be taken as a deduction based on every day thought. With due respect to all let me say this.

As today's T.T.P say that they are fighting to save Muslims and Islam, what does a common man on street think of them. U all know the answer.

in yester years some fought against mughal the ruler of the day, what would mughal sat the time think about those making trouble in the country, they would do the same as we in Pakistan are doing against T.T.P, fight them who are touble makers, and or get rid of them.

With due respect to all those Gurus and Pundits, they were conspiring against the Govt. at ther time and had to be dealt with the way such instances were dealt with, all times.

So this logic that Mughal were horible rulers and were converting people focibaly is fabrication of the wosrt kind and does not corolate with the facts about our history.

if some one is a trouble maker accoriding to the rule of law, u can call him saint or Pundit or Guru, if they break the Law and the rule of the Govt, they will face the consequences of being rebels against govt. of the day and will be dealt with force.

I agree...
sure.. but those rulers were hardly legitimate rulerss.. Sikhs were not against mughals.. we supported mughal emporers like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar.. it was only when legitimacy of their rule was at stake did we fight war against those power hungry people like Jehangir and Shah Jahan.. they were people who had their own fathers and brothers jailed.. tortured or killed just so they could take over mughal empire... Sikhs supported the legitimate mughal rulers against the illegitimate mughal rulers... and that is why so many of gurus got sacrificed.. because they were usually supporting the REAL person which the Mughal throne belonged to.. and the illegitimate ruler didn't like that... just look at how Jehangir stabbed Akbar in the back and took power.. Shah Jahan had his own brother killed to come to power... anddd as they say what goes around comes around.. Aurangzeb had Shah Jahan jailed and also killed his own brother to come to power... they were corrupt power hungry drunkards... and each one of them deserved the way they died.. all suffered to death..
 
:rofl::rofl:

Wekh Iqbal,

I am a girl .. how do I know what you guyz find attractive or not? :rofl: I can post the pics of some Afghan and Persian hotties (guyz) or some Kashmiri and Punjabi hotties (guyz).. but i am sure 99% of you won't be interested in hot guyz..:rofl::rofl: ;)

okkk theek aii.. that is also good point... buttt try to keep pics closer to persian girl pics u posted.. and far away from the fugly afghan and indian pics you posted..lol :)
 
Bro...I highlighted the part specially for the readers of the forum....The source is evidence from Mughal records and even persian ones.....read below...Tho Ill try to find something more palatable for the skeptics
The site references all the sources....

"The number of such ruthless acts of Aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been mentioned, supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of Aurangzeb's period and by such credible Persian sources as Maasir-i-Alamgiri"

My take on the matter is, Aurangzeb as any other dictator/ruler was interested in power....he ruled with an iron hand and that was his right to do so being the ruler.....But when a majority of your population is not Islamic, especially your key allies and some top ranking generals, then one has to be sensitive about matters.....Aurangzeb didnt give a crap and thats what brought his downfall and that of the Mughals.....
Revolt was inevitable.....

Bro Peshwa

By the simple rule of association those Hindus and Sikhs who sides with Aurangzeb and who fought for him were guilty as he.

But again u guys call him dictator, that is your concoction, he was King as Kings in England, France, Spain, scandanavia and in Russia at the time.

They all did worst than him if u read the history of the world at the time.
 
Last edited:
I agree...
sure.. but those rulers were hardly legitimate rulerss.. Sikhs were not against mughals.. we supported mughal emporers like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar.. it was only when legitimacy of their rule was at stake did we fight war against those power hungry people like Jehangir and Shah Jahan.. they were people who had their own fathers and brothers jailed.. tortured or killed just so they could take over mughal empire... Sikhs supported the legitimate mughal rulers against the illegitimate mughal rulers... and that is why so many of gurus got sacrificed.. because they were usually supporting the REAL person which the Mughal throne belonged to.. and the illegitimate ruler didn't like that... just look at how Jehangir stabbed Akbar in the back and took power.. Shah Jahan had his own brother killed to come to power... anddd as they say what goes around comes around.. Aurangzeb had Shah Jahan jailed and also killed his own brother to come to power... they were corrupt power hungry drunkards... and each one of them deserved the way they died.. all suffered to death..

Again Mr. Brar. Sir u r talking about 14th to 17th century, prevailing systems in the world were same as it was in India, kings did strange things according to today's world to hold on to the power, they killed their own brothers and any one else who challanged their rule.

And u Indians are singling out Mughals and that is not true representation of the facts at the time of their rule and that of facts existing at the time in question in all over the world.
 
Last edited:
I agree...
sure.. but those rulers were hardly legitimate rulerss.. Sikhs were not against mughals.. we supported mughal emporers like Akbar and Bahadur Shah Zafar.. it was only when legitimacy of their rule was at stake did we fight war against those power hungry people like Jehangir and Shah Jahan.. they were people who had their own fathers and brothers jailed.. tortured or killed just so they could take over mughal empire... Sikhs supported the legitimate mughal rulers against the illegitimate mughal rulers... and that is why so many of gurus got sacrificed.. because they were usually supporting the REAL person which the Mughal throne belonged to.. and the illegitimate ruler didn't like that... just look at how Jehangir stabbed Akbar in the back and took power.. Shah Jahan had his own brother killed to come to power... anddd as they say what goes around comes around.. Aurangzeb had Shah Jahan jailed and also killed his own brother to come to power... they were corrupt power hungry drunkards... and each one of them deserved the way they died.. all suffered to death..

so accoding to you, they did those horible things, and u continue to say that they were dictators, Brar jee, please think clearly, we are talking about 17th century and in that century there was no democracy to be seen even in countries like England and or france, so judging them by your standard which you base on your imaginations and singling the Mughal out without any regard to the facts of history of the world at the time shows the prejudices against Mughals.

It is funny that all Indians talk in details and make it seem like horible time in India during Mughal rule, never mention about Aryans and English at all as if it was the glorious time of Indian History.

For your referance I am puting up a part of English history for u to read to see what English Kings were doing in 15th and 16th century and than compare Aurangzeb and other Mughal kings to it as this is what was going on in this world at the time Mughal were in power, if compared to their times with other kings, they were the best kings in the world.

John Foxe (1516-1587), Book of Martyrs (1563)

I can give u more about other kings in Europe at the time, but let us see if u really undestand and accept the truth.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom