Akbar and other Mughals

[PostColonial]

Yes India was in its peak under Buddhist rule, first Gupta Dynasty and gained its reputation under Pala dynasty who spread the kingdom from Indonesia to Afganistan and people as far as from Japan could know Pala dyanasty and come to India for knowledge and education.
But as the buddhist declined the Hindus took over and only the surviving buddhist throughout the hindu rules later only converted to Islam specially in eastern india where most of the converts were buddhist.
So in a sense most of good rulers of India were the same group of people, first as a Buddhist then as a Muslim.

LOL what rubbish. Did you just make up all of that, or do they teach this nonsense in your school?

 

[toxic_pus]

no dear we dont envoy for us its enough it was built by a Muslim ruler who ruled over India.

...and yet we get to claim it as ours and earn from it. Isn't it nice.

and hey please do take some time to study the history most of the development took place during outsiders' rule in India and indeed it inculdes present day Pakistan too so dont loose heart

Isn't it natural that people who rule are the ones who are responsible for its development. Who else would have developed India, when Mughals were ruling. Residents of plant cuckoo?

 

[TopCat]

LOL what rubbish. Did you just make up all of that, or do they teach this nonsense in your school?

Why rubbish??? Most of the muslim in eastern india was surviving buddhist. What is your problem here?

 

[Spring Onion]

...and yet we get to claim it as ours and earn from it. Isn't it nice.


Isn't it natural that people who rule are the ones who are responsible for its development. Who else would have developed India, when Mughals were ruling. Residents of plant cuckoo?

ehhh Nevermind. Its another matter that the charachters in Mahabharat were busy in fighting each others

On another note it means once Bharat was always rules by outsiders right ?

 

[PostColonial]

Why rubbish??? Most of the muslim in eastern india was surviving buddhist. What is your problem here?

Yeah "same people were good rulers of India" lol what a load of self-serving rubbish.

Ever heard of Gupta period? Do you know why it is called the "Golden Age" of India? Ever heard of Sangam Period? Cholas? Cheras? Pandyas? Satavahanas? Travancore?

Your post is total nonsense infact. Please go and read some real history rather than make up some self-praising stuff in your own head.

 

[TopCat]

Yeah "same people were good rulers of India" lol what a load of self-serving rubbish.

Ever heard of Gupta period? Do you know why it is called the "Golden Age" of India? Ever heard of Sangam Period? Cholas? Cheras? Pandyas? Satavahanas? Travancore?

Your post is total nonsense infact. Please go and read some real history rather than make up some self-praising stuff in your own head.

I mentioned Gupta and Pala dynasty, that should cover most of Buddhist rein in North India. South India had different history and had nothing to do with us in east and north India. I did not make anything up here. Why should I?

 

[PostColonial]

I mentioned Gupta and Pala dynasty, that should cover most of Buddhist rein in North India. South India had different history and had nothing to do with us in east and north India. I did not make anything up here. Why should I?

No you clearly know nothing about Gupta dynasty. Guptas were Hindus, not Buddhist, although both Hinduism and Buddhism flourished during that time.

Infact, there was nothing called "Hinduism" and "buddhism" back then, these definitions were only created by western historians. People believed in the Dharma of the Buddha but worshipped Hindu gods at the same time.

 

[PostColonial]

Oh and what was that about South Indian history having nothing to do with North Indian?

 

[PostColonial]

 

[TopCat]

Well yu are right at the begining there were very little distinct between Buddhism and Hinduism as Hinduism was not infested by cast system fully that time. And most of the Gupta took buddhism as another sect of hindu religion and buddhism flourished under gupta empire. But later the true Buddhist dynasty came through Palas who reined India for since 7th century to 11 century and took India to its peak.

 

[TopCat]

Oh and what was that about South Indian history having nothing to do with North Indian?

Hmm good question. Infact there were two sects that time. Davidian were ruling south and Aryans reining over north. I dont know why but there were simply not much overlapping till the second millenium. Not sure but Buddhism probably did not penetrate to south. But they were in Srilanaka. You could enlighten me about that.

 

[TopCat]

What is the time span of thsi rule?

 

[PostColonial]

Well yu are right at the begining there were very little distinct between Buddhism and Hinduism as Hinduism was not infested by cast system fully that time. And most of the Gupta took buddhism as another sect of hindu religion and buddhism flourished under gupta empire. But later the true Buddhist dynasty came through Palas who reined India for since 7th century to 11 century and took India to its peak.

My friend, caste has existed in India for thousands of years. It was there before the "aryans" came, it was there during Ashoka's period, during Gupta period, during Pala period. It has always been present.

You are assuming that because the Viharas (universities) declined, the caste system emerged. Nothing of that sort happened.

 

[TopCat]

My friend, caste has existed in India for thousands of years. It was there before the "aryans" came, it was there during Ashoka's period, during Gupta period, during Pala period. It has always been present.

You are assuming that because the Viharas (universities) declined, the caste system emerged. Nothing of that sort happened.

Well sorry for my ignorance. Most of my hindu friends as well as some of the hindu historians that I read, says cast system was later introduced and people could not change cast and all which were very late introduction. Now you are saying something completely different.

 

[PostColonial]

Hmm good question. Infact there were two sects that time. Davidian were ruling south and Aryans reining over north. I dont know why but there were simply not much overlapping till the second millenium. Not sure but Buddhism probably did not penetrate to south. But they were in Srilanaka. You could enlighten me about that.

For starters, this whole division between "Dravidians" and "Aryans" was a misconception created during colonial rule. Recent studies have shown that most Indians have the same genetic makeup, and it is not possible to differentiate between "Aryans" and "Dravdians" on the basis of genetic analysis.

Read this:
Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study - India - The Times of India

A certain percentage of the upper castes have greater genetic affinity with Europeans, but these people are present all over India. These may be the descendants of the migrating Vedic aryans that we keep obsessing about, but in reality have played a pretty minor role in Indian history.