A great invader Mehmood Ghaznavi.Tell me about him !
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
^^ Mehmood of Ghazni was one of the invaders/warriors who were seldom seen the face of defeat and/or retreat in their campaigns, His name and leadership was enough to scare of his Hindu counterparts, who use to commit to stay in the battlefield till their death but used to look for a escape route by the sunset.
His famous invasions to India has set the foundation for the Muslim Sultanate in the Indian sub-Continent, Hindu and other Haters of him only consider him a looter, but none of them answer this question that y almost all the armies of Northern Indian Raj cannot defeat a simple looter...
He has one more credit under his belt, he killed, eliminated Qaramites, a group who cliams to be muslim but love to kill all the muslims.
His famous invasions to India has set the foundation for the Muslim Sultanate in the Indian sub-Continent, Hindu and other Haters of him only consider him a looter, but none of them answer this question that y almost all the armies of Northern Indian Raj cannot defeat a simple looter...
.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong Hanibal.That was not the case.There was nothing to mention on `all North Indian army'.During his times there ws no unified country or a system but each place was a small kingdom.Just see how Ghazni went to help Kannouj (a Hindu Kingdom),when it was attacked by Kalinjar(Another Hindu kingdom).There were nno unity among kings during those times.
I still doubt Ghzni as a ruler other than a looter.A looter who used the cover of darkness and mounted attacks on places.Just one example is ,he atatcked Somnath temple many times.Is there any logic behind the claim that the temple had been attacked many times and each time it had a cache of jewels and other precious stuffs,as if awaiting for Ghazni to come and loot it each time?Even if we buy this,is there any logic to accep that the temple authorities or it's protectors did not take any precaution to defend it?
All these show only one thing that Ghazni was a mere looter who wreaked havoc on the temple ,as a dacoit.
M.Ghaznavi is among great conquorers of world who blast the asses of hindus 17 times!
defeating hindus was nothing for thir great warrior king.
His famous invasions to India has set the foundation for the Muslim Sultanate in the Indian sub-Continent, Hindu and other Haters of him only consider him a looter, but none of them answer this question that y almost all the armies of Northern Indian Raj cannot defeat a simple looter...
.
Wrong Hanibal.That was not the case.There was nothing to mention on `all North Indian army'.During his times there ws no unified country or a system but each place was a small kingdom.Just see how Ghazni went to help Kannouj (a Hindu Kingdom),when it was attacked by Kalinjar(Another Hindu kingdom).There were nno unity among kings during those times.
I said all North Indian Armies, which means there was more than one army.. now you may be aware of the fact that one country normally have one army... on more than one occasion he faced multiple armies of Kanooj ( that is before he got control of Kanooj and Lahore) & Lahore, along with the armies of other states of India, now why is that a looter cannot be stopped by these armies.. there is some myth into it.. isn't it... secondly Mehmood does included Lahore in his Kingdom where Ayaaz was the first Muslim Governor.
Mehmood after defeating kanooj did sealed a treaty with the king of Kanooj, this fact was not taken lighlty by the other Hindu Kings.. so they did attacked Kanooj and Mehmood came to help his ally... Now why did the King of Kanooj signed a treaty with a looter??? why did the Kings of Hindu Kingdom sat quietly on the humilation of their most sacred places such as birth place of Karishna and Somnaat.. were the Hindu Kings wo weak that they couldn't defend their holy places from a Looter????
I still doubt Ghzni as a ruler other than a looter.A looter who used the cover of darkness and mounted attacks on places.Just one example is ,he atatcked Somnath temple many times.Is there any logic behind the claim that the temple had been attacked many times and each time it had a cache of jewels and other precious stuffs,as if awaiting for Ghazni to come and loot it each time?Even if we buy this,is there any logic to accep that the temple authorities or it's protectors did not take any precaution to defend it?All these show only one thing that Ghazni was a mere looter who wreaked havoc on the temple ,as a dacoit.
In todays modern world where we can easily drive 100 KM per Hour, it takes 6/8 hours to travel from Peshawar to Lahore.. whereas Mehmood had to travel through the Lamghan Area, crossing Khyber Pass, crossing all the rivers with his army and armours and then faces the army defeat them and then humilate there sacred temples...
As is said Earlier, Mehmood has been known as dacoit by hindu because they have no answer t his victories niether they can answer that how and why come a mere looter can cross hundred of miles long Thar desert with army in hundred of thousands men and their armour... with the objective of destroying the most holy place of Hiinduism the Somnaat Temple???
His secret of his success was his master planning, depended on his Intelligence network, and his own ability to maneuver the battle field.. not to mention the incompetency og Hindu Kings to tackle with the Invader...
Talking about the incompetency thing, if you look deep down in the history, Indians always gave up to the foreign invasion... doesn't matter is the defenders are Muslims or Hindus.. they all fell...
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
all this jingoistic talk of ghaznavi kicking hindu ass is funny. he did kick some serious ass, right from ghazni to somnath in the rann of kutch, all along the plains of the indus - the region that is now pakistan. the rich agricultural land of the punjab fed the kingdom of ghazni for two decades.
and for my friend marwati, this turkic king who ruthlessly conquered southern afghanistan has left a bigger legacy than any of his pashtoon subjects. ;-)
I said all North Indian Armies, which means there was more than one army.. now you may be aware of the fact that one country normally have one army... on more than one occasion he faced multiple armies of Kanooj ( that is before he got control of Kanooj and Lahore) & Lahore, along with the armies of other states of India, now why is that a looter cannot be stopped by these armies.. there is some myth into it.. isn't it... secondly Mehmood does included Lahore in his Kingdom where Ayaaz was the first Muslim Governor.
Mehmood after defeating kanooj did sealed a treaty with the king of Kanooj, this fact was not taken lighlty by the other Hindu Kings.. so they did attacked Kanooj and Mehmood came to help his ally... Now why did the King of Kanooj signed a treaty with a looter??? why did the Kings of Hindu Kingdom sat quietly on the humilation of their most sacred places such as birth place of Karishna and Somnaat.. were the Hindu Kings wo weak that they couldn't defend their holy places from a Looter????
In todays modern world where we can easily drive 100 KM per Hour, it takes 6/8 hours to travel from Peshawar to Lahore.. whereas Mehmood had to travel through the Lamghan Area, crossing Khyber Pass, crossing all the rivers with his army and armours and then faces the army defeat them and then humilate there sacred temples...
As is said Earlier, Mehmood has been known as dacoit by hindu because they have no answer t his victories niether they can answer that how and why come a mere looter can cross hundred of miles long Thar desert with army in hundred of thousands men and their armour... with the objective of destroying the most holy place of Hiinduism the Somnaat Temple???
His secret of his success was his master planning, depended on his Intelligence network, and his own ability to maneuver the battle field.. not to mention the incompetency og Hindu Kings to tackle with the Invader...
Talking about the incompetency thing, if you look deep down in the history, Indians always gave up to the foreign invasion... doesn't matter is the defenders are Muslims or Hindus.. they all fell...
This is what I said.there was no unity among Indian kings and they were vying each other who could outshine on others.In the year 1024,when Ghazni raided the temple,a Hindu ruler who had crossed his age 90,did fight Ghazni.His name was Ghoga Rana.
And I assume one more side to it.Those were the times a religion called Hinduism' had not been there in the picture rather two sectsVaishnavites(Those who were devotees of lord Vishnu)and Shivites(Devotees of Lord Shiva)had been there.There have been numerous instances in Indian history ,both sects tried to establish dominance over each other.Somnath temple is a temple dedicated to Lord Shiva and I assume,many of the Indian Rulers who did not intervene during Ghazni's attacks were Vaishnavites.They might not have felt the necessity to intervene.
As regards to your point to Indians surrendered to foreign invaders,It was only in India the Great Alexander tasted defeat and had to go back.All invaders including Mughals ,Portugese and British could not last in India forever(I do not want to play down the importance of British because they only gifted this present unified India and above all Hindusim as a religion).So your statement on Indians surrendering to foreign invaders does not stand at all.
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
I am happy that the temple got rennovated later and there is a new ,splendid Somnath temple is in place.A mosque which was built on the old temple complex was also removed.
This is what I said.there was no unity among Indian kings and they were vying each other who could outshine on others.In the year 1024,when Ghazni raided the temple,a Hindu ruler who had crossed his age 90,did fight Ghazni.His name was Ghoga Rana.
And I assume one more side to it.Those were the times a religion called Hinduism' had not been there in the picture rather two sectsVaishnavites(Those who were devotees of lord Vishnu)and Shivites(Devotees of Lord Shiva)had been there.There have been numerous instances in Indian history ,both sects tried to establish dominance over each other.Somnath temple is a temple dedicated to Lord Shiva and I assume,many of the Indian Rulers who did not intervene during Ghazni's attacks were Vaishnavites.They might not have felt the necessity to intervene.
As regards to your point to Indians surrendered to foreign invaders,It was only in India the Great Alexander tasted defeat and had to go back.All invaders including Mughals ,Portugese and British could not last in India forever(I do not want to play down the importance of British because they only gifted this present unified India and above all Hindusim as a religion).So your statement on Indians surrendering to foreign invaders does not stand at all.
Most of the things are based on your assumptions.. so i'll not comment on it...
Now your point that no foriegn invader lasted in India is surprising..
Aryans are first one to Invade India ( now they are known as locals)
Alexendar faced some resistant from the king of Jehlum and the king was defeated later made the representative of Alexander the great in India.
Muslims invaded India and ruled it for almost 1000 years, muslims are the integral part of the India now
British Invaded India and ruled the for almost 150 years, then they left.. yet still GORA controls the region by strings...
and your saying.. it does say how much you know about history
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
Thanks alot for such useful replies :k:
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
Mehmood Ghaznavi was one of countless invaders that invaded India. Last being the British. One thing appears quite consistently in Indian history is teh willingness of Indians themselves to co operate with the invaders. And this was best seen in British Raj, where a few thousand british ruled over 50million Indians.
Hanibal,do not try to impose your knowledge on anybody.When you are short of facts,why to take these futile reverse tactics?
Alexander’s empire was thrown out of India by Chandragupta Maurya,who founded the Maurya empire.Alexander had suffered hugely in India,he himself was wounded and at one stage, his army had revolted fearing long time stand off and endure of hardship.So Alexander or his Satrapis could not remain in India permanently.
As regards to you Aryan invasion,you are just trying to exercise what had been taught to you by your syllabus.I can not take that.I do not count an Aryan invasion at all.In those old days ,where regional ,international boundaries had not been ,it was easy for any group/nomad to enter any region.if the so called Aryan Invasion' had been there,India would not have this white skinned-Dark skinned Dravidian division.
But…
I myself consider an Aryan because of someother reasons.
You can go through the following link to understand more abt why the so-called `Aryan Invasion’ is a myth.
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html
Muslims invaded india and are an integral part of India.I agree… Now there you are… They also could not establish their dominance in India even after this so called 1000 years rule but on the other hand they got assimilated in to Indian main stream.
If you do not have any idea…Portugese were also here and they also left their trail marks.French and Dutch were here…all these had invaded or came to India and had stayed in India for centuries but could not do it permanently.Jews were in India(though not as iinvaders)still many live in India…
So in the end all those came as invaders and guests could not dominate in India but they all got assimilated in to Indian society in some way or the other…
Mehmood Ghaznavi was one of countless invaders that invaded India. Last being the British. One thing appears quite consistently in Indian history is teh willingness of Indians themselves to co operate with the invaders. And this was best seen in British Raj, where a few thousand british ruled over 50million Indians.
I d not want to denounce British due some personal reasons.But at the same time Indians while co-operated alwys revolted against them and ousted them.:)
But I will surely not down play the contributions they gave to India.(Atleast they were civilized,they were not that barbarians like Aurangazib or portugese,not religious bigots).
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
Doesnt looting and destroying another religion's one of the most ancient and holy place of worship degrade anyone's portfolio of greatness?
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
^why not?
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
Such is the greatness of one religion in the world ,Budhism .They conquered the hearts of millions through non violence and their tolerant attittude.
Budhism earns a special comment .Nowhere in history it has resorted to any kind of aggression whether it is offensive or defensive.An absolutely transparent religion.
Agggression on Budhism has been carried out in many places .In India,Srlanka Afghanistan,Tibet....... But mowhere,nowhere it's believers have resorted to non violence or aggression,barring normal remonstrations.
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
Hanibal
Descendants of Mughal rulers other than Bahadur Shah Zafar also survive to this day. They include the line of Jalaluddin Mirza in Bengal, who served at the court of the Maharaja of Dighapatia, and the Toluqari family. :)
I don't agree with the whole glorfication of Mahmud Ghazni. He targetted Muslims and Hindus with equal intensity, he was an effective warrior and he did turn Ghazni and modern day Afghanistan into a beautiful city..but he was no holy warrior ..just ask Firdausi..
I d not want to denounce British due some personal reasons.But at the same time Indians while co-operated alwys revolted against them and ousted them.:)
But I will surely not down play the contributions they gave to India.(Atleast they were civilized,they were not that barbarians like Aurangazib or portugese,not religious bigots).
You seem to have a very skewed vision of history based upon your religious fervour to devi in ur avatar. Mughals contributed to India too, and they never took the Indian wealth out of India like British did, where every worker of East India company made a fortune and headed back home. British too brought missionaries with them who converted large numbers of Indians to christians.
Re: Mehmood Ghaznavi
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/world-affairs/312628-mahmood-ghaznavi-looter.html
Some of this discussion was in above thread. Indians will never accept Ghaznavi being one of the greatest person. He had many many achievements and gave Indians a better life. This Somnath incidence is blown out of proportion. Even hindus of time did the same.