No one can distort the History.

Turning a blind eye does not mean distortion is not taking place.

It's my opinion. I'm entitled for one.

vijay wrote:

Hindu religion did not prevent Hindu kings from fighting with each other. There was no Indian nation till 1857 when British brought the territories of today's India,Pakistan, Bangladesh together to form the new nation of India. Why did Rajputs side with the British? Why did Hindu kings borrow heavily from East India Company to fight against other Hindu kings? The India of !947 was a collection of 500 plus kingdoms. The Muslims came from outside and fought battles and won territories from Hindu kings and subsequent Muslim kings. Please do not see past history with todays biased goggles. See and judge it as it evolved. Shivaji, Rana Pratap were great kings there is no doubt about it. But they fought Mughals to protect their kingdoms, winning some and losing some. Rana Pratap's son became the governor of Kabul under the Mughals. They did not fight as HIndus versus Muslims.

Please come out with facts and not the biased versions which have now become stale and are not real. Happy that I could pull in more members of the forum.

I tnd t agree with what VIijay has written. Remember even RAni Laxminai of Jhansi was fighting only for her kingdom and not India. Same with Shivaji.

MG Singh wrote:

vijay wrote:

Hindu religion did not prevent Hindu kings from fighting with each other. There was no Indian nation till 1857 when British brought the territories of today's India,Pakistan, Bangladesh together to form the new nation of India. Why did Rajputs side with the British? Why did Hindu kings borrow heavily from East India Company to fight against other Hindu kings? The India of !947 was a collection of 500 plus kingdoms. The Muslims came from outside and fought battles and won territories from Hindu kings and subsequent Muslim kings. Please do not see past history with todays biased goggles. See and judge it as it evolved. Shivaji, Rana Pratap were great kings there is no doubt about it. But they fought Mughals to protect their kingdoms, winning some and losing some. Rana Pratap's son became the governor of Kabul under the Mughals. They did not fight as HIndus versus Muslims.

Please come out with facts and not the biased versions which have now become stale and are not real. Happy that I could pull in more members of the forum.

I tnd t agree with what VIijay has written. Remember even RAni Laxminai of Jhansi was fighting only for her kingdom and not India. Same with Shivaji.

First things first. Saving her kingdom is the first priority. Then comes the country. Remember Rani Lakshmi Bai's kingdom is very small. She has to find a place from where she has to launch an offense against the mighty British. What could be a better place than her own kingdom ?

Actually History is more about rulers and victors rather than the vanquished.  The medieval history is obviously of some Muslim dynasties including Mogul.  No doubt, Maharana Pratap, Shivaji, Banda bairagi and some others fought heroically.  But they were defeated. Their heroism can be appreciated. But it will make no sense to include more about Maharana Pratap and shivaji rather than Akbar and Aurangzeb.  The Mogul emperors after Aurangzeb are also not highlighted more as they had lost most of the empire.  One poster has commented that the warriors like Shivaji are confined only to regions and not known elsewhere so much. This is natural. Most of the Hindu rulers were effective only in their respective regions. Shivaji was a Maratha ruler and obviously had no role in other regions. Same about rana Pratap. History is written on realistic basis considering relative significance of personalities and places rather than emotions of population in certain regions. 

Who are these Muslims and English but invaders ? History Books are written by British Historians eulogizing Muslims and English. The sycophant Indian rulers for the sake of titles like Rai Bahadur danced to the tunes of British Historians,.

Shivaji believed in driving away these invaders, though he ruled a small region. It's his strong desire to conquer Aurangazeb and other Mughals whose atrocities  against Hindus were in excesses. Despite his limitations, Shivaji with his strong will fought against Mughals. None can rob away his greatness.

usha manohar wrote:

Of course the Mughals were outsiders.. They were like the British who needed to be thrown out, which did not happen because Indian rulers had no unity.We have to thank the British for uniting India , for whatever selfish read\son they might have had , which had become further fragmented after the Mughals came and vandalised the nation.

Yes British gave us lesion, healing of which is almost impossible, it is Pakistan. Thanks to Sardar Patel, who united the India. 

rambabu wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

vijay wrote:

Hindu religion did not prevent Hindu kings from fighting with each other. There was no Indian nation till 1857 when British brought the territories of today's India,Pakistan, Bangladesh together to form the new nation of India. Why did Rajputs side with the British? Why did Hindu kings borrow heavily from East India Company to fight against other Hindu kings? The India of !947 was a collection of 500 plus kingdoms. The Muslims came from outside and fought battles and won territories from Hindu kings and subsequent Muslim kings. Please do not see past history with todays biased goggles. See and judge it as it evolved. Shivaji, Rana Pratap were great kings there is no doubt about it. But they fought Mughals to protect their kingdoms, winning some and losing some. Rana Pratap's son became the governor of Kabul under the Mughals. They did not fight as HIndus versus Muslims.

Please come out with facts and not the biased versions which have now become stale and are not real. Happy that I could pull in more members of the forum.

Rana Pratap's son did not work as under the Mughals in his life. It is reason that no one know about the Rana's son.

I tnd t agree with what VIijay has written. Remember even RAni Laxminai of Jhansi was fighting only for her kingdom and not India. Same with Shivaji.

First things first. Saving her kingdom is the first priority. Then comes the country. Remember Rani Lakshmi Bai's kingdom is very small. She has to find a place from where she has to launch an offense against the mighty British. What could be a better place than her own kingdom ?

 

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Of course the Mughals were outsiders.. They were like the British who needed to be thrown out, which did not happen because Indian rulers had no unity.We have to thank the British for uniting India , for whatever selfish read\son they might have had , which had become further fragmented after the Mughals came and vandalised the nation.

Yes British gave us lesion, healing of which is almost impossible, it is Pakistan. Thanks to Sardar Patel, who united the India. 

The Loh Purush of India Sardar Patel the then Home minister through his Police action united the country