Women on the throne: From Indira to Raziya

[Joe Shearer]

"women rulers"....... this gender swapping thing has gotten to the point where men want strong women to wear the pants and rule them.... "let me off the ride!" is how I feel about the society today....

anyways, women rulers are against Islam.... women can be ruler of the kitchen

Pathetic.

this kind of thinking is a gateway to becoming one of those guys who lets their woman enter them with a device

And repeated.

Now we know what some people watch avidly behind closed doors and drawn window curtains, and fantasise about.

I wish we didn't know.

 

[W.11]

Yes, Rani Prabhavati Gupta who ruled from 385 C.E to 405 C.E.

The Vakataka were allies with the Gupta since Rani Prabhavati Gupta was the daughter of Chandragupta II and married to Vakataka king Rudrasena II.

she made way for her second son Damodarasena who ruled till 440 C.E.

So no she did not make way for her FATHER CHandragupta II.

vakataka was probably a vassal state, there is her inscription which discusses her gupta lineage and omits the vakataka one which is given as an example of her letting her father run the vakataka affairs which also probably made way for his annexation of kuntala and other regions in south india.

regards

 

[jamahir]

anyways, women rulers are against Islam.... women can be ruler of the kitchen

I think you are in the wrong kind of "Muslim" company.

 

[Andhadhun]

vakataka was probably a vassal state, there is her inscription which discusses her gupta lineage and omits the vakataka one which is given as an example of her letting her father run the vakataka affairs which also probably made way for his annexation of kuntala and other regions in south india.

regards

She kept her Gupta name but her sons kept the Vakataka name.

2000 years back there was NO WAY someone could rule another kingdom which was 100 km apart, much less one that was 400 km away.

Vakataka's were closely allied with the Guptas and were never annexed. Though they could very well have accepted the overlordship of the Gupta empire.

India always had the tradition of Ashwamedha yagna which was done to gain overlordshop of Bharatvarsha.

Which is why men like Malik Kafur could ride upto South India without any resistance. Most kingdome's were used to having Emperors from time to time.

vakataka was probably a vassal state, there is her inscription which discusses her gupta lineage and omits the vakataka one which is given as an example of her letting her father run the vakataka affairs which also probably made way for his annexation of kuntala and other regions in south india.

regards

She kept her Gupta name but her sons kept the Vakataka name.

2000 years back there was NO WAY someone could rule another kingdom which was 100 km apart, much less one that was 400 km away.

Vakataka's were closely allied with the Guptas and were never annexed. Though they could very well have accepted the overlordship of the Gupta empire.

India always had the tradition of Ashwamedha yagna which was done to gain overlordshop of Bharatvarsha.

Which is why men like Malik Kafur could ride upto South India without any resistance. Most kingdome's were used to having Emperors from time to time.

 

[W.11]

2000 years back there was NO WAY someone could rule another kingdom which was 100 km apart, much less one that was 400 km away.

what are you on about?

vassalage system was used by the guptas to rule india much the same way as the british and the mughals.

regards

 

[Omar Al-Deek]

Pathetic.



And repeated.

Now we know what some people watch avidly behind closed doors and drawn window curtains, and fantasise about.

I wish we didn't know.

No, I can assure you, I don't fantasize about a woman ruling over me. Making up lies for political reasons is typical SJW behavior. What is confirmed is you're a white knight male feminist. I can assure you that women lowkey crave men who are dominant and not simp types who worship women.

 

[T-123456]

Why funny?
Hatshepsut.
Cleopatra.
Empress Suiko
Isabela I of Castile
Queen Elizabeth I
Catherine the Great
Empress Dowager Cixi
Empress Wu Zetian
etc....

 

[Andhadhun]

what are you on about?

vassalage system was used by the guptas to rule india much the same way as the british and the mughals.

regards

Arthashastra clearly defines two kinds of agreements atmamisha and purushantarasandhi, where woman of rank should be given as an hostage, and on the condition of supplying his army.

Since Chandragupta gave his daughter, it could be that the Vakataka Empire was the stronger of the two. So its very much possible that Gupta's were vassals to the Vakataka Empire.

In such arrangement there is no exchange of wealth.

SO NO, they are NOT AT ALL similar to the British or Mughal system of vassalage.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No, I can assure you, I don't fantasize about a woman ruling over me. Making up lies for political reasons is typical SJW behavior. What is confirmed is you're a white knight male feminist. I can assure you that women lowkey crave men who are dominant and not simp types who worship women.

Your assurances are, of course, definitive.

 

[W.11]

Arthashastra clearly defines two kinds of agreements atmamisha and purushantarasandhi, where woman of rank should be given as an hostage, and on the condition of supplying his army.

Since Chandragupta gave his daughter, it could be that the Vakataka Empire was the stronger of the two. So its very much possible that Gupta's were vassals to the Vakataka Empire.

In such arrangement there is no exchange of wealth.

SO NO, they are NOT AT ALL similar to the British or Mughal system of vassalage.

your theory has some loopholes

1) the female was given as wife not hostage, and im not entirely sure of your context of your reference from arthashastra

2) There are instances in the indian history where the dominating kingdoms have given females as marriage alliances to strengthen their rule, i forgot the example, probably harsha gave his daughter for marriage to some vassal kingdom.

3) various kartanataka inscriptions mention rule of chandragupta II and guptas in general which confirms the vassal status of the vakatakas most probably because one cannot rule the southern deccan without first securing the northern deccan region.

regards

 

[Andhadhun]

your theory has some loopholes

1) the female was given as wife not hostage, and im not entirely sure of your context of your reference from arthashastra

2) There are instances in the indian history where the dominating kingdoms have given females as marriage alliances to strengthen their rule, i forgot the example, probably harsha gave his daughter for marriage to some vassal kingdom.

3) various kartanataka inscriptions mention rule of chandragupta II and guptas in general which confirms the vassal status of the vakatakas most probably because one cannot rule the southern deccan without first securing the northern deccan region.

regards

Women of Rank given as hostage means a Marriage alliance.

Ramayana is one of the first book any Hindu reads and knows. No hindu king would keep any women hostage without running the risk of losing the respect of his peers and subjects.

Arthashastra is pretty clearly about alliances. It says "One shall make an alliance with a king who is stronger than one's neighboring enemy"

So unless Vakataka was an equally strong kingdom, no Emperor would give his daughter hand in marriage.

Also it is very much possible to bypass the Vakataka kingdom to rule the south. The same way Aurangzeb tried to do by bypassing the Maratha empire.

 

[W.11]

Women of Rank given as hostage means a Marriage alliance.

Ramayana is one of the first book any Hindu reads and knows. No hindu king would keep any women hostage without running the risk of losing the respect of his peers and subjects.

Arthashastra is pretty clearly about alliances. It says "One shall make an alliance with a king who is stronger than one's neighboring enemy"

So unless Vakataka was an equally strong kingdom, no Emperor would give his daughter hand in marriage.

Also it is very much possible to bypass the Vakataka kingdom to rule the south. The same way Aurangzeb tried to do by bypassing the Maratha empire.

as i said, there are intances of strong kingdoms giving away their daughters to the vassal states.

regards

 

[Omar Al-Deek]

Why funny?
Hatshepsut.
Cleopatra.
Empress Suiko
Isabela I of Castile
Queen Elizabeth I
Catherine the Great
Empress Dowager Cixi
Empress Wu Zetian
etc....

Are you a Muslim celebrating Isabel la Católica?

Do you know who that lady was?

Modi is a friend of Muslims compared that lady.

 

[Raghav_101]

No, I can assure you, I don't fantasize about a woman ruling over me. Making up lies for political reasons is typical SJW behavior. What is confirmed is you're a white knight male feminist. I can assure you that women lowkey crave men who are dominant and not simp types who worship women.

Why are you so insecure about woman rulers ?

As far as I know there are woman politicians and officers in Pakistan. Just for curiosity, answer me , will you deny to comply with order of a woman officer ? Like some DC or SP ??

 

[Omar Al-Deek]

Very sad to see what is supposed to be a defence forum be a platform for male feminism, reversing the natural order.

If you're a man who thinks women rulers are cool, I think you might have low testosterone levels and I recommend you do strength training.