\|/ Aryavrat ki Sena #96 \|/ - Invites Only - Page 21

Originally posted by: .moonglade.

Love is all about giving, without expecting anything in return. And while building a symbol of that love, if hatred and violence are given in return, I believe it is of no use since it violates the basic concept of love.

Originally posted by: Cluny13

Not only that Di Mumtaz mahal at the age of 37 had given birth to 14 children and she dies during childbirth. It is said she was paralysed when she gave birth to her 12th child yet she gave birth to more children. Is this even a monument of love 😕

Ram Setu😳

Originally posted by: Shrinika13

I think it would be a crime to compare Rama/Krishna or anyone like that, and Shah Jahan.

I think that the plundering of India began way before the British, it began with the Mughals. Yes, people say that Akbar was a 'good' and 'tolerant' king, but excuse me, who was he to tolerate? His people invaded India.

Also, yeah, I agree with Sru. People's viewpoints matter the most to them. 🥱

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

Was it love, or was it lust?

Why do people never get the difference?

Originally posted by: .moonglade.

^And these days, true love doesn't even exist I suppose. 😔

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Of course, I don't think we should compare Godly avatars with human rulers, but I'm just trying to understand people's mindset that glorifies the Taj Mahal despite the fact that it was build through violence, and yet forgets/disregards the Ram Setu which was a symbol of true love and devotion.

And I totally agree! My dad always says that the three people in history who are touted as 'great' (Akbar the Great, Alexander the Great, Asoka the Great) were in fact three rulers who caused the most bloodshed around the world. Akbar may have been better and a bit more tolerant than his descendants, but he was no saint himself, and like you said, who was he to 'tolerate' Hindus? His people invaded India, and due to the Mughals only our scriptures and temples got destroyed/interpolated, way before the British.

As much as I dislike the British for invading India themselves, a part of me wonders if it's because of them that India even got Independence, because if the British hadn't invaded, the Mughals might still have had hold over India, and India might've been another third world country, its rich culture totally destroyed.

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

Was it love, or was it lust?

Why do people never get the difference?