• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Allaudin Khilji - Monster or Human

Status
Not open for further replies.

prasad1

Well-known member
I went and Saw the Movie "Padmavat". It is a magnificent movie.
I did some digging on the Internet about Allaudin.
From my school days, we believed Allaudin to a Monster. That is the prevailing History of the day. My wife is from Rajasthan and to hey the Padmavati of Jayasi is real.
I have been to Chittaurgarh, and have seen the fort and listened to the story.


This post is purely a perspective. I would like an open discussion, without blaming the poster. I do not have any liking for Khilji.


But now the perspective of the Villain is changing.

Alauddin Khilji was born Ali Gurshasp to Shihabuddin Masud and had 3 brothers. He was born in the year 1266-1267 in Birbhum district in West Bengal. After his parents passed away, Khilji and his brothers were brought up by their uncle and the 1st ruler of the Khilji dynasty, Jalaluddin Khilji. Alauddin married Jalaluddin's daughter and later on murdered his father in law to take over the throne of the Delhi Sultanate. It was Alauddin's dream to become the second Sikander (Alexander).

So is he an Indian?

In the true sense NO, as there was no India at that Time. He was born and raised in the Indian subcontinent.

In that respect, he is as Indian as Say Adi Shankara.

He was the most successful ruler of the Khilji dynasty and ruled for 2 decades from his seat in Delhi. At the heights of his power, the Khilji dynasty ruled major parts of Afghanistan till Bihar and from Kashmir till Karnataka. That is the major portion of Indian Subcontinent.

As much as a maniac and barbaric as he is thought to be, he did introduce groundbreaking market, agrarian and military reforms that helped the farmers and peasants of India. He levied no extra cess on the farmers and cut zamindars and landowners out of the loop from the tax system. He directly collected tax from the farmers and that left them free from the hands of zamindars. He also kept a large standing army ranging from hundreds of thousands. He also banned drinking, gambling and drug consumption from the public view in the later years of his life.

Defended India:
He also defended India from the ravaging Mongols who controlled most of Asia back then. Mongols were utterly ruthless, divided into different tribes and attacked countries from multiple places. They were known for their brutality. Khilji kept India, its culture and its people safe from the Mongols.


https://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/bollywood/all-you-need-to-know-about-alauddin-khilji-the-most-powerful-ruler-of-the-khilji-dynasty/ar-AAv6xTc?ocid=ob-tw-enin-476


Continued to next post.
 
Last edited:

prasad1

Well-known member
Alauddin invaded, conquered and plundered the Hindu kingdoms of Gujarat (raided in 1299 and annexed in 1304), Ranthambore (1301), Chittor (1303), Malwa (1305), Siwana (1308), and Jalore (1311). These victories ended several Hindu dynasties, including the Paramaras, the Vaghelas, the Chahamanas of Ranastambhapuraand Jalore, the Rawal branch of the Guhilas, and possibly the Yajvapalas. His slave-general Malik Kafur led multiple campaigns to the south of the Vindhyas, obtaining a considerable amount of wealth from Devagiri (1308), Warangal (1310) and Dwarasamudra (1311). These victories forced the Yadava king Ramachandra, the Kakatiyaking Prataparudra, and the Hoysala king Ballala III to become Alauddin's tributaries. Kafur also raided the Pandya kingdom (1311), obtaining a large number of treasures, elephants and horses.

Initially, Alauddin consolidated power by making generous grants and endowments, and appointing a large number of people in the government offices. He balanced the power between the officers appointed by the Mamluks, the ones appointed by Jalaluddin, and his own appointees. He also increased the strength of the Sultanate's army, and gifted every soldier the salary of a year and a half in cash. Of Alauddin's first year as the Sultan, Ziauddin Barani wrote that it was the happiest year that the people of Delhi had ever seen.

The Mongol invasion of 1303 was one of the most serious invasions of India, and prompted Alauddin to take several steps to prevent its repeat. He strengthened the forts and the military presence along the Mongol routes to India. He also implemented a series of economic reforms to ensure sufficient revenue inflows for maintaining a strong army.


Alauddin's government imposed the jizya tax on its non-Muslim subjects, and his Muslim subjects were obligated to contribute zakat. He also levied taxes on residences (ghari) and grazing (chara'i), which were not sanctioned by the Islamic law. In addition, Alauddin demanded four-fifth share of the spoils of war from his soldiers, instead of the traditional one-fifth share (khums).

To ensure that the goods were sold at regulated prices, Alauddin appointed market supervisors and spies, and received independent reports from them. To prevent a black market, his administration prohibited peasants and traders from storing the grains, and established government-run granaries, where government's share of the grain was stored. The government also forced the transport workers to re-settle in villages at specific distances along the Yamuna river to enable rapid transport of grain to Delhi.

Alauddin also increased his level of control over the nobility. He reduced the economic wherewithal of nobles to launch rebellions by confiscating their wealth and removing them from their bases of power. Even charitable lands administered by nobles were confiscated. Severe punishments were given for disloyalty. Even wives and children of soldiers rebelling for greater war spoils were imprisoned. An efficient spy network was set up that reached into the private households of nobles. Marriage alliance made between noble families had to be approved by the king.


Alauddin banned charlatans, and ordered sorcerers (called "blood-sucking magicians" by his courtier Amir Khusrau) to be stoned to death.


Like his predecessors, Alauddin was a Sunni Muslim. His administration persecuted the Isamaili (Shia) minorities, after the orthodox Sunnis falsely accused them of permitting incest in their "secret assemblies". Alauddin ordered an inquiry against them sometime before 1311. The inquiry was conducted by the orthodox ulama, who found several Ismailis guilty. Alauddin ordered the convicts to be sawn into two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alauddin_Khalji




In summary Was he the monster? It depends on who you ask.

My opinion is deviating away from the MONSTER, that I thought he was.
 
Last edited:
[h=1][FONT=&quot]When it comes to discussion, we will have to discuss both the sides, viz. the bright and the dark…rise and fall...[/FONT][/h][h=1][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/h][h=1]Dark side of Alauddin Khilji's sexuality and Baccha Bazithat led to his brutal death![/h][h=2][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/h][h=2][FONT=&quot]1.Secret's of AlauddinKhilji's sexuality[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][/h][FONT=&quot]Several historians argue that the roots of ancient Indianhistory, especially linked to the foreign invasions and invaders, run deeperthan it seems to appear on the surface.
.........
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[h=2]11.Zanana[/h]According to Jayasi’s poen, Alauddin’s lust for his sexual passions, had reached such a level that it is said his harem had more than 70,000 males, females and children. Of which, 30,000 women, were the widows of men that he killed in one day.
[FONT=&quot]
Read more at: https://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/facts-about-alauddin-khilji-sexuality-and-death/sexuality-in-question


More to come..[/FONT]
 

prasad1

Well-known member
Jayasi wrote the epic poem as a story 200 years after Allaudin Khilji died. It was not a History written by a Historian or scholar.

So we must not accept Jayasi poetic version as history.Historian Rana Safvi believes that Khilji was anything but savage. It was under his rule the Delhi Sultanate heavily drew from Persia, one of the oldest and most sophisticated civilisations of all time, she said.“The rulers followed the exact code of conduct and etiquette as in Persia. It would have been very formal — the eating, dining and sartorial choices,” said Safvi.

“It cannot be ignored that the epic Padmavat was penned centuries after Khilji’s attack. Jayasi wrote it in Awadhi, not any Rajasthani dialect. He belonged to a different region,” pointed out Arunima Gopinath, associate professor of Women’s Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

The poet Amir Khusro, who flourished during the Khilji rule, gave a detailed account of the king’s conquests as well as his reign in the 13th century. The poet did not project him as a barbarian ruler either.“Khilji was aware he was cruel but he was not the kind to be running after women and then conquering kingdoms. He was only interested in expansions and conquests,” she said.


Alauddin was a “cruel imperialist” and a good military strategist who wanted to crush Mongol invaders, she held.


“He was trying to strike terror into the hearts of others. He wasn’t religious either. He perhaps may have been the only king who didn’t go to read prayers at Friday congregations,” she pointed out.


A section of academics believes the depiction of Khilji is only the latest move in a larger movement in parts of the country to distort history.


Akbar has been branded a foreigner defeated in battle and efforts are on to erase Aurangzeb’s name — if not from history, at least from road signs.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/whose-history-is-it-anyway-padmaavat-taints-alauddin-khilji-not-padmavati/story-MvpB4OREqm4auO0nVHKt5K.html
 
Last edited:

renuka

Well-known member
Its this simple..

No King or Ruler knocks on his enemies door and says " I come in peace..kindly hand me over your kingdom"

King means war.
Its the Dharma of a King to wage a war and extend his kingdom.

Harems are part of any culture..be it Hindu or Muslim.
Kings had harems..its a known fact..the common man cant afford a harem so he usually just looks at the neighbours wife or if he gets lucky he gets a chinna veedu.

Lust is nothing new to any human in power and position be it male or female.
If the world was ruled by Amazonians they would have had a harem of males!

Lust doesnt make a person bad nor does celibacy make a person good.

Lust is just intense desire..we can lust for anything for the matter.

Even Bhakti is a form of Lust..the intense desire to feel connected to what we desire..be it even God

We are used to only seeing one side of the picture..its like calling Duryodhana a bad king..was he a bad king?
Nope
.but we are made to imagine he was bad.

When the Pandavas were exiled did the kingdom suffer?

No..cos Duryodhana ran his kingdom well.

So likewise any King knows how to run his kingdom to stay in power and not make his subjects suffer.

In the Game of Thrones every King is a monster who wants to rule and extend his kingdom by any means.
 
One cannot simply brush aside a poets view..

Have we not read about Historian distorting history…..?

Historians fabricating events… with mallacious intention…?

Have we have not read about how the British distorted Indian History..?

Demeaning the real history….misguiding the whole worl by destroying the old records, monuments, historical structures, etc

We all know Aristortle’s work and how his historical fiction was considered as base and important source for few historians.
 
Kings means war..... No

There were kings who are revered as Rishis....


One among them is Janaka or Janak who was a king of Videha around seventh-century BC. He is revered as being an ideal example of non-attachment to material possessions. As a king, he had access to luxuries and pleasures far beyond the ordinary, but his internal state was closer to that of a sadhu. He was intensely interested in spiritual discourse and considered himself free from worldly illusions. His interactions with sages and seekers such as Ashtavakra and Sulabha are recorded in ancient texts.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janaka
 
It is not war...... it is looting

In 1311, Malik Kafur entered the Srirangam temple, massacred theBrahmin priests of the temple who resisted the invasion for three days,plundered the temple treasury and the storehouse and desecrated and destroyednumerous religious icons.[SUP][[/SUP]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus


P.S: Malik Kafur is one among the three Commanders of Alauddin Khilji
 

renuka

Well-known member
Well..the British looted India too but even till today if Prince Charles comes to India he is treated like God.

Why double standards?

If we want to hate looters...hate all.

Dont be selective and only hate just a specific religion.
 

renuka

Well-known member
Kings means war..... No

There were kings who are revered as Rishis....


One among them is Janaka or Janak who was a king of Videha around seventh-century BC. He is revered as being an ideal example of non-attachment to material possessions. As a king, he had access to luxuries and pleasures far beyond the ordinary, but his internal state was closer to that of a sadhu. He was intensely interested in spiritual discourse and considered himself free from worldly illusions. His interactions with sages and seekers such as Ashtavakra and Sulabha are recorded in ancient texts.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janaka
So if anyone invaded his kingdom he welcomed them?
Surely he did his duty as a King and didnt he expand his kingdom?
 

prasad1

Well-known member
So if anyone invaded his kingdom he welcomed them?
Surely he did his duty as a King and didnt he expand his kingdom?

When normal people talk of planets they mean real planets recognized world over. Them some people talk of Rahu and Ketu as planets. There is no comparison.

Janak or Yudhistra as king comparing to Khilji or Akbar is talking about fiction and facts.
Let us not mix History with Mythology.
 

CHANDRU1849

Well-known member
Well..the British looted India too but even till today if Prince Charles comes to India he is treated like God.

Why double standards?

If we want to hate looters...hate all.

Dont be selective and only hate just a specific religion.
Yes. Are we not following British in all spheres like Politics,Sports, Theatre, Education, Science, Technology? What were the achievements of Mughals in line with the above and others?
 
We are used to only seeing one side of the picture..its like calling Duryodhana a bad king..was he a bad king?
Nope
.but we are made to imagine he was bad.

When the Pandavas were exiled did the kingdom suffer?

No..cos Duryodhana ran his kingdom well.

So likewise any King knows how to run his kingdom to stay in power and not make his subjects suffer.

In the Game of Thrones every King is a monster who wants to rule and extend his kingdom by any means.




When normal people talk of planets they mean real planets recognized world over. Them some people talk of Rahu and Ketu as planets. There is no comparison.

Janak or Yudhistra as king comparing to Khilji or Akbar is talking about fiction and facts.
Let us not mix History with Mythology.

Now who mentioned about Duryodhana...?

And who dragged Pandavas here

It is very important to go thro every posting before coming here to blindly offer opinion dragging Rahu and Ketu.

I just rmember planet Sani here.

And this is called double standard

Wise members don't do that.lol
 
Well..the British looted India too but even till today if Prince Charles comes to India he is treated like God.

Why double standards?

If we want to hate looters...hate all.

Dont be selective and only hate just a specific religion.

You seems to be ignorant of Indian history..

Can you furnish the list of Hindu temples that were destroyed or demolished by the British in India during their era, they were unwilling to do that in order to avoid rubbing with the sentiments of people having faith in Hindu religion.

But on the other hand, it is reported nearly 60,000 Hindu Temples in India were destroyed by the other and some are very important.

One should understand the fact that destroying Hindu temples will inflame the Hindu religious sentiments but not looting their wealth.

We do have people who needs to realize the differences.lol
 

renuka

Well-known member
You seems to be ignorant of Indian history..

Can you furnish the list of Hindu temples that were destroyed or demolished by the British in India during their era, they were unwilling to do that in order to avoid rubbing with the sentiments of people having faith in Hindu religion.

But on the other hand, it is reported nearly 60,000 Hindu Temples in India were destroyed by the other and some are very important.

One should understand the fact that destroying Hindu temples will inflame the Hindu religious sentiments but not looting their wealth.

We do have people who needs to realize the differences.lol
So you feel the Brit is a lesser devil?

Ok...I get it...O learned one!
That is you dont mind any Devil as long he keeps out of places of worship.

What about other aspects of live besides temples?
 

renuka

Well-known member
Yes. Are we not following British in all spheres like Politics,Sports, Theatre, Education, Science, Technology? What were the achievements of Mughals in line with the above and others?
We got a lot of dishes!

Mughal food from Mughals.

Arab and persian influence shaped even music and India got Hindustani music.

Urdu came into existence which led to poetical expression in Bollywood songs.

Then Sweets like Halwa..Jalebi..etc..

Minakaari jewelry design.
 
So you feel the Brit is a lesser devil?

Ok...I get it...O learned one!
That is you dont mind any Devil as long he keeps out of places of worship.

What about other aspects of live besides temples?

So, you want to talk about the bitter experience of Hindus due to religious persecution in the form of forceful conversion.

Have read about Tippu...?
 

tbs

Well-known member
hi

generally all muslim rulers are ruthless.....they want expansion of the kingdom and killing many hindus/destroying many temples..

there is no exception...
 
hi

generally all muslim rulers are ruthless.....they want expansion of the kingdom and killing many hindus/destroying many temples..

there is no exception...

You are right sir.

I have read about as to how tippu acquired Palghat Fort in the year 1783 and the brutalities he reported to have committed against Brahmins.

It is reported that his soldiers scared Hindus by exposing the heads of all innocent Brahmins that were brutally killed by them from the fort Zamorin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top