An open challenge to Indians, if all Muslim empires in sub-continent were barbaric then name even a single saint-like Hindu empire in entire history!

[The Bald Eagle]

Again what about your comparitions table? Tell me which point under Islamic is superior than Sanatani's? Dont leave the guess work to the reader. State your point rather clearly and unambiguously

Just asked AI app and following is the answer:

• Devi Bhagavatam: Explicitly endorses Sati, describing Madri’s self-immolation as a virtuous act (6.25.35–50; 2.6.53–71)4.
• Shiva’s Consort Sati: The myth of Dakshayani (Sati), who self-immolated after her father insulted Shiva, is cited in Puranic lore (e.g., Skanda Purana). However, this is distinct from widow immolation and later became a symbolic justification for the practice56.

Dharmashastras​

• Parashara Smriti (4.28), Brihaspati Smriti (24.11), and Vishnu Smriti (25.14): These later legal texts prescribe Sati as an option for widows, though early Dharmashastra literature (e.g., Manusmriti) does not explicitly mention it38.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@IndoorCricket please interpret following for us

Ramayan 2.66.12 - Kaushalya: "Today itself, I too in devotion to my husband, will meet my appointed end. I shall enter the fire, duly embracing this body of my husband."

Mahabharat 16.7.24 - 26 - The four wives of that heroic son of Sura ascended the funeral pyre and were consumed with the body of their lord. All of them attained to those regions of felicity which were his.The son of Pandu burnt the body of his uncle together with those four wives of his, using diverse kinds of scents and perfumed wood. As the funeral pyre blazed up, a loud sound was heard of the burning wood and other combustible materials, along with the clear chant of Samans and the wailing of the citizens and others who witnessed the rite.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Just asked AI app and following is the answer:

• Devi Bhagavatam: Explicitly endorses Sati, describing Madri’s self-immolation as a virtuous act (6.25.35–50; 2.6.53–71)4.
• Shiva’s Consort Sati: The myth of Dakshayani (Sati), who self-immolated after her father insulted Shiva, is cited in Puranic lore (e.g., Skanda Purana). However, this is distinct from widow immolation and later became a symbolic justification for the practice56.

Dharmashastras​

• Parashara Smriti (4.28), Brihaspati Smriti (24.11), and Vishnu Smriti (25.14): These later legal texts prescribe Sati as an option for widows, though early Dharmashastra literature (e.g., Manusmriti) does not explicitly mention it38.

Dont just drink AI slop. There is a option of DeepResearch in all LLM's

Madri's sati (the act of immolation of a widow on her husband's funeral pyre) has been studied by scholars as a way to gain insights into the practice of sati during the ancient epic period. However, her case stands out as an exceptionally rare instance in the Mahabharata, where widows—aside from a few in later added chapters—do not perform sati

@IndoorCricket please interpret following for us

Ramayan 2.66.12 - Kaushalya: "Today itself, I too in devotion to my husband, will meet my appointed end. I shall enter the fire, duly embracing this body of my husband."

Mahabharat 16.7.24 - 26 - The four wives of that heroic son of Sura ascended the funeral pyre and were consumed with the body of their lord. All of them attained to those regions of felicity which were his.The son of Pandu burnt the body of his uncle together with those four wives of his, using diverse kinds of scents and perfumed wood. As the funeral pyre blazed up, a loud sound was heard of the burning wood and other combustible materials, along with the clear chant of Samans and the wailing of the citizens and others who witnessed the rite.

Do you know Rama's father Dasharatha has three wifes. Check this from the same AI slop

• No, none of King Dasharatha’s wives—Kausalya, Kaikeyi, or Sumitra—are recorded as performing sati in the original Valmiki Ramayana or in most traditional versions of the epic.
  
  
  

  Key points:​

  • Sati was a ritual where a widow immolated herself on her husband's funeral pyre. While this practice existed in later historical periods, it was not a norm in the era or context of the Ramayana, especially for queens of Ayodhya.
  • After Dasharatha’s death, his wives—especially Kausalya and Sumitra—are shown to be alive and present when Rama returns from exile and is crowned king.
  • In fact, they are part of the emotional reunion scenes in Uttara Kanda (the later part of the Ramayana), which confirms they did not perform sati.
• 
  So no—none of Dasharatha’s wives committed sati according to the traditional Ramayana.

Provide actual scholorly references. I can use AI to destroy Islamic warefare rules. I know how these LLMs work. Use your logic and brain. Dont outsource it to AI.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Symbolic sacrifise is done by Hindu women to cut bonds with the dead husband to cut ties with him and then continue live her life without the bondage. Widow marraiges exist in Vedic scriptures so its a contradiction if the women actually dies.

@The Bald Eagle
Again if Sati is even performed it is not related to WARFARE, husband can die not only in war. The poit of our discussion is how Islamic warefare rules are superior to Sanatani warefare rules.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Symbolic sacrifise is done by Hindu women to cut bonds with the dead husband to cut ties with him and then continue live her life without the bondage. Widow marraiges exist in Vedic scriptures so its a contradiction if the women actually dies.

@The Bald Eagle
Again if Sati is even performed it is not related to WARFARE, husband can die not only in war. The poit of our discussion is how Islamic warefare rules are superior to Sanatani warefare rules.

Thanks no AI use now.

To simply put Islam doesn't discriminate who could fight righteous war unlike Hinduism although the participation of women and children are generally discouraged. Islam doesn't specifically mention a warrior caste to do this job.

And most importantly, Islam doesn't call for self immolation of any female family member in order to save herself from enemy forces. Like we found in some Hindu religious text for the widows of warrior caste.

And overall there are a lot of similarities in both religions rules of warfares. The only distinguishing features for Islam is the above point and most importantly the strict adherence to peace treaties even in dire circumstances unless treaty not breached.

There are some other points too like detailed description on how Prisoner of Wars would be dealt and treated and how the minorities of the conquered land would be protected with any harm to their life leading to the Muslims who caused them harm being deprived from the blessings of Heaven.... And more mentions of their civil and other rights etc.

 

[Champ_Pal]

* First on Sikh Gurus: They were not Rulers but just spiritual leaders of their community.

Guru Tegh Bahadur was not a political ruler or king; he was the ninth Guru (spiritual leader) of the Sikh community from 1664 to 1675


2.
Brutalities of Ashoka the Great
Ashoka’s early reign was marked by extreme violence and ruthless consolidation of power:

• Fratricidal rise: He killed all male rivals, including his elder brother Susima, and waged a four-year civil war to claim the throne4.
• Mass executions: Early legends describe him beheading 500 ministers for questioning his orders and constructing a brutal torture chamber (“Ashoka’s Hell”) to punish dissenters2.
• Kalinga massacre: His 265 BCE invasion of Kalinga killed ~100,000 soldiers/civilians, injured countless others, and enslaved 150,00024.

Post-Kalinga contradictions:
While Buddhist texts highlight his remorse and embrace of nonviolence, his edicts included threats of violence against rebellious tribes4. Some sources allege he persecuted rival sects like the Ajivikas, potentially contributing to their extinction24.

3. Raja Chola Empire

The Chola Empire, particularly under leaders like Rajaraja I, was known for its military strength and expansionist policies, which led to brutal conquests and atrocities. They invaded and occupied territories in Sri Lanka, Lakshadweep, and Maldives, decimating populations and looting treasures. Their campaigns were characterized by violence, destruction, and the elimination of enemy rulers and their families.

Here's a more detailed look at the brutalities:

• Conquest of Anuradhapura:
  The Cholas invaded and destroyed Anuradhapura, the ancient capital of the Sinhalese kings, causing widespread destruction and abandonment of the city.
  
  
• Occupation of Sri Lanka:
  Rajaraja I's invasion of Sri Lanka in 993 AD resulted in the Chola occupation of the island for nearly a century.
  
  
• Treatment of Enemies:
  The Cholas were known for their uncompromising tactics in war, eliminating rather than sparing enemies. This included the execution of captured generals and their families.
  
  
• Destruction of Sinhalese Resources:
  The Cholas plundered and destroyed the resources of Sri Lanka, including its precious treasures.
  
  
• Military Campaigns:
  The Cholas engaged in numerous military campaigns, including expeditions to North India, demonstrating their aggressive expansionist policies.
  
  
  
• Impact on Subjects:
  While some portray the Chola period as a golden age, historians acknowledge that the Chola polity was brutal, and its own subjects may not have held a positive view of its rule.
  4. Harshavardhana empire
  • Harshavardhana, a devotee of Lord Shiva later embraced Buddhism.
  • The practice of ‘Sati’ was prevalent among the higher classes during Harsha’s period.
• Reason (R): Harsha’s mother committed ‘Sati’ after the death of her husband.

And he fought many EXPANSIONIST WARs like "Invaders" lol but get away as no records available on the number of casualties in these wars

Aggressive Military Campaigns Under Harshavardhana's Empire
Harsha (606–647 CE) pursued an expansionist policy to unify northern India, mobilizing large armies (5,000 elephants, 20,000 cavalry, 50,000 infantry)1. Key campaigns include:


- Eastern Conquests: Defeated King Sasanka of Gauda (Bengal) after prolonged campaigns, annexing Magadha, Bengal, and South Bihar post-Sasanka’s death1. Allied with Kamarupa (Assam) under Bhaskara-Varman1.
- Western Expansion: Conquered Sindh and Vallabhi (Gujarat), securing alliances through marriage with King Dhruvasena II1. Extended control over Saurashtra, Kutch, and western Malwa1.
- Southern Campaign: Invaded the Deccan (c. 620 CE) but faced defeat against Chalukya ruler Pulakeshin II near the Narmada River, halting southern expansion12.
- Southeastern Push: Annexed parts of Orissa (643 CE), later hosting Buddhist conferences there1.

• No specific casualty figures are recorded in historical sources like Hiuen Tsang’s accounts or inscriptions

5. Krishnadevaraya (r. 1509–1529 CE) – Vijayanagara Empire

1. Battle of Meduru (1515):
   Skirmishes with Prataparudra Deva’s forces led to heavy casualties on both sides before Vijayanagara’s victory3. The scale of fighting suggests significant loss of life, though exact figures are unavailable.
2. Diplomatic Subterfuge:
   Minister Timmarusu bribed Gajapati nobles to betray Prataparudra Deva, destabilizing the enemy before capturing Cuttack3. Such tactics, while strategic, undermined loyalty and likely caused internal strife.
3. Post-Conquest Pillaging:
   While Krishnadevaraya’s era lacked the systemic destruction seen later (e.g., 1565 Sack of Vijayanagara56), captured territories like Kondavidu were garrisoned, and local elites replaced, indicating coercive consolidation3.

Ashok is not praised. He is called Chhandd Ashok AKA Tyrant Ashok.

Chola king Mr.Rajendra Chola was a deeck. He wanted to destroy the East Asian Buddhist/Hindu empires to have all the resources there for himself. He did not follow the rules of war.

Krishnadevaraya was a king of South India. He did not create a large kingdom by being docile. He fought wars and conqyered the lands. People die in wars. As long as women are not enslaved and kids sold into slavery like Turks do, it is what happens during war.

Not sure what you are trying to prove here. People die during wars. Political betrayal, expansion ideas, putting down enemies is common for all rules around the world.

What separates these Indian kings from the great Turkic rulers is - Slavery, sex slavery, castration of some male captives, beheading the enemy kings, taking the enemy kings wives as concubines and humiliating them, destruction of religious places.

You are trying hard man. Death is inevitable during war time. What happens after the war shows the character of the people who won.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Thanks no AI use now.

To simply put Islam doesn't discriminate who could fight righteous war unlike Hinduism although the participation of women and children are generally discouraged. Islam doesn't specifically mention a warrior caste to do this job.

And most importantly, Islam doesn't call for self immolation of any female family member in order to save herself from enemy forces. Like we found in some Hindu religious text for the widows of warrior caste.

And overall there are a lot of similarities in both religions rules of warfares. The only distinguishing features for Islam is the above point and most importantly the strict adherence to peace treaties even in dire circumstances unless treaty not breached.

Again Sati is symbolic. Khastriya is anyone who can fight. You seem to be intentionaly ignoring this point even with valid sources. Nowhere it is mentioned women to sucide when there are invading forces. It was evident in the slokas yourself provided.

Kahstriyas were like trained soliders, their primary dharma is to to protect. Anyone can fight in protection of Dharma.
Example:- Dronacharya was a Brahmin in Mahabharatha, but he was one of the fierst warroirs on the battlefield and he was guru for the Kuru clan. From Gita - “The four varnas were created by Me based on guna (qualities) and karma (actions)”

Even Hindu kings followed peace treaties as Dharma is supreme than anything else in Hinduism.

None of this proves Islamic warfare supremacy over Dharmic warfare.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Ashok is not praised. He is called Chhandd Ashok AKA Tyrant Ashok.

Chola king Mr.Rajendra Chola was a deeck. He wanted to destroy the East Asian Buddhist/Hindu empires to have all the resources there for himself. He did not follow the rules of war.

Krishnadevaraya was a king of South India. He did not create a large kingdom by being docile. He fought wars and conqyered the lands. People die in wars. As long as women are not enslaved and kids sold into slavery like Turks do, it is what happens during war.

Not sure what you are trying to prove here. People die during wars. Political betrayal, expansion ideas, putting down enemies is common for all rules around the world.

What separates these Indian kings from the great Turkic rulers is - Slavery, sex slavery, castration of some male captives, beheading the enemy kings, taking the enemy kings wives as concubines and humiliating them, destruction of religious places.

You are trying hard man. Death is inevitable during war time. What happens after the war shows the character of the people who won.

Very hard TBH. First he claimed supremacy of Islamic warfare but no evidance to suggest otherwise.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Again Sati is symbolic. Khastriya is anyone who can fight. You seem to be intentionaly ignoring this point even with valid sources. Nowhere it is mentioned women to sucide when there are invading forces. It was evident in the slokas yourself provided.

Kahstriyas were like trained soliders, their primary dharma is to to protect. Anyone can fight in protection of Dharma.
Example:- Dronacharya was a Brahmin in Mahabharatha, but he was one of the fierst warroirs on the battlefield and he was guru for the Kuru clan. From Gita - “The four varnas were created by Me based on guna (qualities) and karma (actions)”

Even Hindu kings followed peace treaties as Dharma is supreme than anything else in Hinduism.

None of this proves Islamic warfare supremacy over Dharmic warfare.

Point to be noted. There can be kings and empires who dont follow warfare rules but that does not mean those are norms.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Just asked AI app and following is the answer:

• Devi Bhagavatam: Explicitly endorses Sati, describing Madri’s self-immolation as a virtuous act (6.25.35–50; 2.6.53–71)4.
• Shiva’s Consort Sati: The myth of Dakshayani (Sati), who self-immolated after her father insulted Shiva, is cited in Puranic lore (e.g., Skanda Purana). However, this is distinct from widow immolation and later became a symbolic justification for the practice56.

Dharmashastras​

• Parashara Smriti (4.28), Brihaspati Smriti (24.11), and Vishnu Smriti (25.14): These later legal texts prescribe Sati as an option for widows, though early Dharmashastra literature (e.g., Manusmriti) does not explicitly mention it38.

Devi Bhagavatam is the story of Lord Shiva's wife Sati who self immolated as she was unable to bear the insult her father Daksha met out to her husband(shiva). She is later born as Parvati in her second incarnation and marries Shiva again. It is part of Shiv Purana. Aka Mythology.

The story of Sati repeats in many other texts like Skanda Purana(Son of Shiva and Parvati) and many other religious literature later on.

Smritis are not Shrutis. Smriti is written down by people. Shruti is supposedly the divine revelations. Anyone can write a Smriti. Like ManuSmriti(written somewhere between 5th-7th century CE).

Sati was practiced by some for centuries and it is not mandatory. Mostly among warrior castes. Countless women lived their full lives after their husband's death in Hindu religious literature and Indian history. It was definitely misused by wicked men to kill widows who were considered a burden for various reasons. It is banned and made illegal by constitution. Just like caste discrimination is banned and made illegal.

 

[LordJames]

You guys just don't get it? There has been no Hindu and Sikh leaders who have forcefully tried to convert the people in the name of thier religion, killed the kids like Guru Gobind Singh's sons. But I will humour you as you have not an iota of idea about our Indian History and Sikhism and Hinduism.

Here is my list.

1. Raja Raja Chola I (r. 985–1014 CE) – Chola Empire
   • A powerful South Indian king known for expanding the Chola Empire and building great temples like the Brihadeeswarar Temple.
   • No record of religious persecution; he supported Shaivism but allowed other sects to flourish.
2. Krishnadevaraya (r. 1509–1529 CE) – Vijayanagara Empire
   • A patron of arts, literature, and religious tolerance.
   • Though a devout Hindu, he supported Jain and even some Muslim scholars, and his court included people from various religious backgrounds.
3. Ashoka the Great (r. 268–232 BCE) – Maurya Empire
   • After the Kalinga war, he converted to Buddhism and championed non-violence and religious tolerance.
   • His edicts promoted respect for all faiths and opposed religious persecution.
4. Harsha (r. 606–647 CE) – Vardhana Empire
   • Though a Hindu by religion, he was a strong patron of Buddhism, supported religious debates and diverse sects, and maintained religious harmony.

1. Guru Nanak (1469–1539)
   • Founder of Sikhism, firmly opposed forced conversion, caste discrimination, and religious violence.
   • Preached universal brotherhood, equality, and devotion without ritualism.
2. Guru Tegh Bahadur (1621–1675)
   • Martyred for protecting Kashmiri Pandits from forced conversion under Mughal rule.
   • He stood for the right to religious freedom—even for those outside his own faith.
3. Guru Gobind Singh (1666–1708)
   • The 10th Sikh Guru, he created the Khalsa to fight oppression.
   • While he led military resistance against tyranny, he did not advocate forced conversions or genocide.
   • Famous for saying: “Recognize all mankind as one.”

@The Bald Eagle t

The entire Islamic conquest in the Indian subcontinent was marked by significant brutality. While it’s true that many civilisations throughout history have engaged in violent conquests and expansion, often involving the annexation of foreign lands and suppression of local populations, the distinguishing factor in the case of Islamic invasions was the widespread and systematic use of religious persecution, forced conversions, and mass killings carried out explicitly in the name of religion. This ideological justification for violence—where faith was not just a backdrop but the central motive—sets these conquests apart. Drawing parallels to extremist ideologies like those of ISIS or historical figures such as Hitler, the imposition of a singular religious worldview through violence is what makes this chapter of history particularly grim. Despite this, some continue to glorify such figures, especially in national narratives across regions like Pakistan, which raises serious concerns about how history is remembered and taught. I mean why do Pakistanis name their Missiles Ghazni.. he is an Afghan and modern day Pakistanis are descendants of Hindus who were forcefully converted. If we go back 5 generations, your ancestors were called Ram Lal and Kishan lal. That is the point of contention - a Fake identity and identity solely based on that Pakistanis are not Hindus.

Four pages later, I would like to Thank dear @hoshiarpurexpress for at least trying to address the topic without flooding the zone with irrelevant discussions.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Devi Bhagavatam is the story of Lord Shiva's wife Sati who self immolated as she was unable to bear the insult her father Daksha met out to her husband(shiva). She is later born as Parvati in her second incarnation and marries Shiva again. It is part of Shiv Purana. Aka Mythology.

The story of Sati repeats in many other texts like Skanda Purana(Son of Shiva and Parvati) and many other religious literature later on.

Smritis are not Shrutis. Smriti is written down by people. Shruti is supposedly the divine revelations. Anyone can write a Smriti. Like ManuSmriti(written somewhere between 5th-7th century CE).

Sati was practiced by some for centuries and it is not mandatory. Mostly among warrior castes. Countless women lived their full lives after their husband's death in Hindu religious literature and Indian history. It was definitely misused by wicked men to kill widows who were considered a burden for various reasons. It is banned and made illegal by constitution. Just like caste discrimination is banned and made illegal.

@IndoorCricket plz elaborate the meaning of Hindu sacred religious verses that I quoted in post 322 and champ pal plz explain the meaning too. Also if that is Shruti or smitri.

 

[IndoorCricket]

@IndoorCricket plz elaborate the meaning of Hindu sacred religious verses that I quoted in post 322 and champ pal plz explain the meaning too. Also if that is Shruti or smitri.

If only you have read post #323 you would have got your answer.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Ashok is not praised. He is called Chhandd Ashok AKA Tyrant Ashok.

Chola king Mr.Rajendra Chola was a deeck. He wanted to destroy the East Asian Buddhist/Hindu empires to have all the resources there for himself. He did not follow the rules of war.

Krishnadevaraya was a king of South India. He did not create a large kingdom by being docile. He fought wars and conqyered the lands. People die in wars. As long as women are not enslaved and kids sold into slavery like Turks do, it is what happens during war.

Not sure what you are trying to prove here. People die during wars. Political betrayal, expansion ideas, putting down enemies is common for all rules around the world.

What separates these Indian kings from the great Turkic rulers is - Slavery, sex slavery, castration of some male captives, beheading the enemy kings, taking the enemy kings wives as concubines and humiliating them, destruction of religious places.

You are trying hard man. Death is inevitable during war time. What happens after the war shows the character of the people who won.

Well ask @hoshiarpurexpress who unlike you people atleast contributed positively and come up with some examples for us. On Turkic or any invader let me be very clear any person not following the Islamic rules of warfare in wars doesn't represent Islam. Simple as that.

On Islam rules of warfare @IndoorCricket please let us all know which religion has a detailed codified rules on treatment of POW and minorities of a conquered land Islam or any other religion?? And if after mentioning so many points you can't comprehend my point of view then I don't know how to get my point across your point.

Also the Islamic rules of warfare were literally followed by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), four pious caliphs, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi etc and many more but can you both mention some Hindu rulers for us who followed Hinduism rules of warfare in letter and spirit. Simply put UN have many amazing rules for world peace too but what the use of it when no one follows it at all and be zines

 

[Champ_Pal]

Well ask @hoshiarpurexpress who unlike you people atleast contributed positively and come up with some examples for us. On Turkic or any invader let me be very clear any person not following the Islamic rules of warfare in wars doesn't represent Islam. Simple as that.

On Islam rules of warfare @IndoorCricket please let us all know which religion has a detailed codified rules on treatment of POW and minorities of a conquered land Islam or any other religion?? And if after mentioning so many points you can't comprehend my point of view then I don't know how to get my point across your point.

Also the Islamic rules of warfare were literally followed by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), four pious caliphs, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi etc and many more but can you both mention some Hindu rulers for us who followed Hinduism rules of warfare in letter and spirit. Simply put UN have many amazing rules for world peace too but what the use of it when no one follows it at all and be zines

I don't bring Islam into the treatment of Prisoners of war. There are examples in Hadiths and the Life of Prophet to see what has happened there. It will derail the topic. If you want, open a thread and we can discuss how conquered people were treated.

I am specifically talking in the context of Indian subcontinent and the empires that it witnessed. In this case the Turko-Mongol empires. It is written in Indian history how the Turkic invaders treated the locals upon their invasion. I have posted the link about the Bukhara Slave Market and Kabul Slave Market. Indians were sold like commodities.

Indians have a very poor record of recording anything about their history. It is shambolic at best. They did not even record about Ashoka until his inscriptions were discovered by British. Such a shame! Even the later Gupta Dynasty and Shunga dynasty and then the Huns who accepted Hinduism/Buddhism that ruled India were very poorly recorded. We only know about that because of the coins that were found. No written stuff on stones or tablets. The only proper recordings of Hindu Kings are from 15th century onwards. By that time, most of India was under Turkic rule.

If we want to see how Hindu Kings followed the Dharmic rules of war, we have to go to Mahabharata and Ramayana. Almost 3000-5000yrs ago. There are some recordings of Kakatiya dynasty of Andhra Pradesh. A pretty bloody one. But it was only the royals fighting. People were spared.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't bring Islam into the treatment of Prisoners of war. There are examples in Hadiths and the Life of Prophet to see what has happened there. It will derail the topic. If you want, open a thread and we can discuss how conquered people were treated.

I am specifically talking in the context of Indian subcontinent and the empires that it witnessed. In this case the Turko-Mongol empires. It is written in Indian history how the Turkic invaders treated the locals upon their invasion. I have posted the link about the Bukhara Slave Market and Kabul Slave Market. Indians were sold like commodities.

Indians have a very poor record of recording anything about their history. It is shambolic at best. They did not even record about Ashoka until his inscriptions were discovered by British. Such a shame. Even the later Gupta Dynasty and Shunga dynasty and then the Huns who accepted Hinduism/Buddhism that ruled India were very poorly recorded. We only know about that because of the coins that were found. No written stuff on stones or tablets. The only proper recordings of Hindu Kings are from 15th century onwards. By that time, most of India was under Turkic rule.

If we want to see how Hindu Kings followed the Dharmic rules of war, we have to go to Mahabharata and Ramayana. Almost 3000-5000yrs ago. There are some recordings of Kakatiya dynasty of Andhra Pradesh. A pretty bloody one. But it was only the royals fighting. People were spared.

So if Indians have a very poor record of recording anything in their history, which history are you referring to when you talk about Turkic invaders and how they treated the population?

 

[Champ_Pal]

So if Indians have a very poor record of recording anything in their history, which history are you referring to when you talk about Turkic invaders and how they treated the population?

We have evidence of thousands of Indian slaves sold in the markets of Kabul, Kandahar and Bukhara.

Bukhara slave trade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am talking about the poor evidence of Indian kings, their life styles prior to 10th century. We only know them by their coins. So the max we know is the name of the king, his family and a few notable people. Nothing written down about the governance in detail or what the society was like. The few accounts we have were from Chinese Travelers who visited India. Huen Tsang(7th century Buddhist Traveler from China that visited India to explore religion) and Fahien(4th Century).
The oldest details of Indian society can be found from the Travels of Greek Traveler Megasthanes and his travels during Mauryan Period.
We know a bit in detail of the society and the names of the kings that ruled various places from their recordings. No Indian historian ever bothered to record anything. It is indeed shameful.

 

[speed]

Its true the Word Hindu in farsi/dari means slave, due to the amount of Slaves the kings from Afghanistan, central asia would bring back with them after there expeditions in India.

 

[LordJames]

Its true the Word Hindu in farsi/dari means slave, due to the amount of Slaves the kings from Afghanistan, central asia would bring back with them after there expeditions in India.

No

Thread 'An open challenge to Indians, if all Muslim empires in sub-continent were barbaric then name even a single saint-like Hindu empire in entire history!'

Feb 27, 2025

It is too easy to get brainwashed when your chief source of history are the propoganda based national text books. And it seems to be true for some so called scholars here who are too quick to brand any Muslim empires in Indian subcontinent as barbaric and uncivilized while at the same time doesn't even know the name of their Hindu ruled empires and their emperors who have scaled the same crimes against their own brethrens long ago and even during contemporary Muslim rule.

So this overreaction just expose the hypocrisy of Indians or they are too naive to believe in their concocted history...

• The Bald Eagle
• Replies: 339
• Forum: Time Pass and Sports

• 

 

[speed]

No

Thread 'An open challenge to Indians, if all Muslim empires in sub-continent were barbaric then name even a single saint-like Hindu empire in entire history!'

Feb 27, 2025

It is too easy to get brainwashed when your chief source of history are the propoganda based national text books. And it seems to be true for some so called scholars here who are too quick to brand any Muslim empires in Indian subcontinent as barbaric and uncivilized while at the same time doesn't even know the name of their Hindu ruled empires and their emperors who have scaled the same crimes against their own brethrens long ago and even during contemporary Muslim rule.

So this overreaction just expose the hypocrisy of Indians or they are too naive to believe in their concocted history...

• The Bald Eagle
• Replies: 339
• Forum: Time Pass and Sports

• 

Just check any persian english dictionary.