Coffeehouse for desis
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Was Rana Pratap an ass?

+3
doofus_maximus
ashdoc
Idéfix
7 posters

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:05 pm

Rana Pratap fought bravely against mughal emperor Akbar. After the initial fights he retired to the forests of his native region where he ultimately died in a hunting accident. Some time after his death his son Udai made peace with Akbar's son Jahangir and agreed to become a mughal vassal. My question: What did Rana Pratap actually accomplish by fighting with Akbar? Should he have made peace with Akbar? Can it be said that Rana Pratap, while no doubt being a brave man, was also an ass ?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:07 pm

A good note on Akbar:

If ever a leader merited a tautology, it was the Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great (literally, "Great the Great"). Under Akbar, a fragile collection of fiefs around Delhi grew into the great Mughal Empire, a diverse and sprawling kingdom across northern India. While Christians staggered haltingly toward achieving what we now know as the Renaissance, Akbar presided over a flourishing of the arts, sponsoring artisans, poets, engineers and philosophers. He was a canny warlord whose conquests gave rise to one of the early modern world's wealthiest states. Moreover, while a Muslim, Akbar was spiritually curious and hosted religious scholars from Hindu gurus to Jesuits at his vast, diverse court. At his capital city of Fatehpur Sikri, which he built according to astronomical coordinates, he championed a melding of Hinduism and Islam known as the din-i-ilahi or the "divine faith." While the creed no longer lingers, the ethos of pluralism and tolerance that defined Akbar's age underlies the values of the modern republic of India.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2046285_2045996_2046303,00.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:14 pm

Thank you for the much-needed revival of Akbar-worship. Please note, however, that his great grandson Aurangzeb the Great was more secular than Akbar.

---

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favoured. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had 14 Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court (Ref: Mughal Government). But this fact is somewhat less known. It does not require much intelligence to understand the difference between 14 and 148.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64191
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by ashdoc Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:Rana Pratap fought bravely against mughal emperor Akbar. After the initial fights he retired to the forests of his native region where he ultimately died in a hunting accident. Some time after his death his son Udai made peace with Akbar's son Jahangir and agreed to become a mughal vassal. My question: What did Rana Pratap actually accomplish by fighting with Akbar? Should he have made peace with Akbar? Can it be said that Rana Pratap, while no doubt being a brave man, was also an ass ?

no , rana pratap was not an ass . but you with your halfassed knowledge certainly are....

when rana pratap's son ultimately made peace with jahangir , he did not have to peddle his virgin daughter or sister to the barbaric turkomongols . to this day the fact that they had to give their daughters to the turkomongols makes the heads of the highest royalty in rajasthan hang their heads in shame .

but the house of sisodias of mewar can say proudly that they NEVER had to give their daughters or sisters to the mughals to purchase peace---and they are the only royal house in rajasthan who can say so .

and it was the courage of rana pratap that led foundations to the tradition of never having to compromise honour of their women with the foreigner .

thats why at the time of his coronation the great shivaji claimed to be a descendant of the gallant rana . and when the maratha peshwa bajirao went to rajasthan he sat below rana pratap's descendant in height--a honour he refused to the maharaja of jaipur who had given his daughter to the bed of the mughal .

ashdoc

Posts : 2256
Join date : 2011-05-04

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:33 pm

ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Rana Pratap fought bravely against mughal emperor Akbar. After the initial fights he retired to the forests of his native region where he ultimately died in a hunting accident. Some time after his death his son Udai made peace with Akbar's son Jahangir and agreed to become a mughal vassal. My question: What did Rana Pratap actually accomplish by fighting with Akbar? Should he have made peace with Akbar? Can it be said that Rana Pratap, while no doubt being a brave man, was also an ass ?

no , rana pratap was not an ass . but you with your halfassed knowledge certainly are....

when rana pratap's son ultimately made peace with jahangir , he did not have to peddle his virgin daughter or sister to the barbaric turkomongols . to this day the fact that they had to give their daughters to the turkomongols makes the heads of the highest royalty in rajasthan hang their heads in shame .

but the house of sisodias of mewar can say proudly that they NEVER had to give their daughters or sisters to the mughals to purchase peace---and they are the only royal house in rajasthan who can say so .

and it was the courage of rana pratap that led foundations to the tradition of never having to compromise honour of their women with the foreigner .

thats why at the time of his coronation the great shivaji claimed to be a descendant of the gallant rana . and when the maratha peshwa bajirao went to rajasthan he sat below rana pratap's descendant in height--a honour he refused to the maharaja of jaipur who had given his daughter to the bed of the mughal .

Akbar was marrying the Rajput princesses so as to establish good diplomatic ties with the Rajputs. If Rana Pratap would have agreed to make peace with Akbar on the condition that females from his family would not join the mughal harem, i am sure Akbar would have agreed. After all, Akbar was a reasonable person. It served Rajputs also that their princesses were with Akbar because they could play a diplomatic role on behalf of their kingdom.

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by ashdoc Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:40 pm

Rashmun wrote:

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?

you bringing shivaji's parentage into this topic only shows your low nature nothing else .

i didnt say shivaji was a sisodia or rana pratap's descendant . rather shivaji claimed falsely to be so . it was his way of paying homage to the great rana .

ashdoc

Posts : 2256
Join date : 2011-05-04

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by doofus_maximus Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Rana Pratap fought bravely against mughal emperor Akbar. After the initial fights he retired to the forests of his native region where he ultimately died in a hunting accident. Some time after his death his son Udai made peace with Akbar's son Jahangir and agreed to become a mughal vassal. My question: What did Rana Pratap actually accomplish by fighting with Akbar? Should he have made peace with Akbar? Can it be said that Rana Pratap, while no doubt being a brave man, was also an ass ?

no , rana pratap was not an ass . but you with your halfassed knowledge certainly are....

when rana pratap's son ultimately made peace with jahangir , he did not have to peddle his virgin daughter or sister to the barbaric turkomongols . to this day the fact that they had to give their daughters to the turkomongols makes the heads of the highest royalty in rajasthan hang their heads in shame .

but the house of sisodias of mewar can say proudly that they NEVER had to give their daughters or sisters to the mughals to purchase peace---and they are the only royal house in rajasthan who can say so .

and it was the courage of rana pratap that led foundations to the tradition of never having to compromise honour of their women with the foreigner .

thats why at the time of his coronation the great shivaji claimed to be a descendant of the gallant rana . and when the maratha peshwa bajirao went to rajasthan he sat below rana pratap's descendant in height--a honour he refused to the maharaja of jaipur who had given his daughter to the bed of the mughal .

Akbar was marrying the Rajput princesses so as to establish good diplomatic ties with the Rajputs. If Rana Pratap would have agreed to make peace with Akbar on the condition that females from his family would not join the mughal harem, i am sure Akbar would have agreed. After all, Akbar was a reasonable person. It served Rajputs also that their princesses were with Akbar because they could play a diplomatic role on behalf of their kingdom.

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?


The world famous ' I am sure' strikes again.
doofus_maximus
doofus_maximus

Posts : 1903
Join date : 2011-04-29

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:50 pm

ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?

you bringing shivaji's parentage into this topic only shows your low nature nothing else .

i didnt say shivaji was a sisodia or rana pratap's descendant . rather shivaji claimed falsely to be so . it was his way of paying homage to the great rana .

what are the exact details about shivaji's parentage? did he come from a broken family? who exactly was Shivaji's father? do u think it is justified to ban the books by james laine and jayant lele?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:52 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Rana Pratap fought bravely against mughal emperor Akbar. After the initial fights he retired to the forests of his native region where he ultimately died in a hunting accident. Some time after his death his son Udai made peace with Akbar's son Jahangir and agreed to become a mughal vassal. My question: What did Rana Pratap actually accomplish by fighting with Akbar? Should he have made peace with Akbar? Can it be said that Rana Pratap, while no doubt being a brave man, was also an ass ?

no , rana pratap was not an ass . but you with your halfassed knowledge certainly are....

when rana pratap's son ultimately made peace with jahangir , he did not have to peddle his virgin daughter or sister to the barbaric turkomongols . to this day the fact that they had to give their daughters to the turkomongols makes the heads of the highest royalty in rajasthan hang their heads in shame .

but the house of sisodias of mewar can say proudly that they NEVER had to give their daughters or sisters to the mughals to purchase peace---and they are the only royal house in rajasthan who can say so .

and it was the courage of rana pratap that led foundations to the tradition of never having to compromise honour of their women with the foreigner .

thats why at the time of his coronation the great shivaji claimed to be a descendant of the gallant rana . and when the maratha peshwa bajirao went to rajasthan he sat below rana pratap's descendant in height--a honour he refused to the maharaja of jaipur who had given his daughter to the bed of the mughal .

Akbar was marrying the Rajput princesses so as to establish good diplomatic ties with the Rajputs. If Rana Pratap would have agreed to make peace with Akbar on the condition that females from his family would not join the mughal harem, i am sure Akbar would have agreed. After all, Akbar was a reasonable person. It served Rajputs also that their princesses were with Akbar because they could play a diplomatic role on behalf of their kingdom.

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?


The world famous ' I am sure' strikes again.

i should have used 'in my opinion' instead. Thanks for correcting me.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:57 pm

Is it a Personal Subjective Opinion or an Absolute Opinion? https://such.forumotion.com/t5325-a-clarification#42365

Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?

you bringing shivaji's parentage into this topic only shows your low nature nothing else .

i didnt say shivaji was a sisodia or rana pratap's descendant . rather shivaji claimed falsely to be so . it was his way of paying homage to the great rana .

what are the exact details about shivaji's parentage? did he come from a broken family? who exactly was Shivaji's father? do u think it is justified to ban the books by james laine and jayant lele?

on another note, i want you to know that i am a great admirer of Shivaji and i much appreciated reading his letter to Aurangzeb. As i wrote earlier:

In Sir Jadunath Sarkar's 'Shivaji' pgs 320-323, one finds the english translation of a remarkable letter that the renowned Maratha leader Shivaji had written to the mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The letter was written three years prior to Shivaji's death, soon after Aurangzeb had imposed jaziya on hindus. The letter opens by paying a tribute to Akbar's policy in the sphere of religion.

"That architect of the fabric of Empire, Akbar Padshah, adopted the admirable policy of universal harmony in relation to all the various sects, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, materialists, atheists, brahmins, and Jain priests. The aim of his liberal heart was to cherish and protect all the people. So he became famous under the title of Jagat Guru, the world's spiritual guide."

This is followed by similar appreciative references to Jahangir and Shah Jahan. Shivaji continues:

'They [i.e. Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan--Rashmun], too, had the power to levy the jaziya, but they did not give place to bigotry in their hearts as they considered all men, high and low, created by God, to be examples of the nature of diverse creeds and temperaments....Prayer and praise for these three pure souls will dwell forever in the hearts and tongues of mankind.'

The next point Shivaji makes to Aurangzeb is even more significant.

'Your peasants are downtrodden; the yield of every village has declined; it is a reign in which the army is in ferment, the merchants complain, the muslims cry, the hindus are grilled, most men lack bread at night and in the day inflame their own cheeks by slapping them in anguish. How can the royal spirit permit you to add the hardship of the jaziya to this grievous state of things?'

So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"

Shivaji then goes on to say that the jaziya could be excused if there was such peace and prosperity under Aurangzeb's rule that a beautiful woman could travel unmolested from one part of his kingdom to another, but such a condition does not exist.

The last point of Shivaji's letter is also extremely important.

'If you believe in the true Divine Book and the Word of God , you will find there that God is styled Rabb-ul-alamin, the lord of all men, and not Rabb-ul-mussalmin, the lord of the Mohammedans only. Verily Islam and Hinduism are terms of contrast. If it be a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted in rememberance of Him only. If it be a temple, the bell is rung in yearning of Him only. To show bigotry for any man's creed and practices is equivalent to altering the words of the Holy Book.'


http://rivr.sulekha.com/shivaji-letter-to-aurangzeb_432973_blog

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:06 pm

Rashmun wrote:So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"
Now, this is awfully interesting. This proves that Aurangzeb was not communal at all! Aurangzeb did not target Hindus with his jaziya. His imposition of jaziya was not targeted against Hindus for their religious beliefs -- otherwise why would be exempt his Hindu nobles and chieftains?

This train of logic is brought to you courtesy of Rashmun, in the Nizam thread. In that thread, Rashmun argued that the Razakars did not target Hindus, because some Hindu landlords supported the Razakars, and the Razakars would not kill their supporters. What's good for the Nizam is good for Aurangzeb. If the Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communalx100.

PS: This shall soon be cross-referenced, dotted, countersigned and filed in triplicate on the Aurangzeb thread.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:21 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"
Now, this is awfully interesting. This proves that Aurangzeb was not communal at all! Aurangzeb did not target Hindus with his jaziya. His imposition of jaziya was not targeted against Hindus for their religious beliefs -- otherwise why would be exempt his Hindu nobles and chieftains?

This train of logic is brought to you courtesy of Rashmun, in the Nizam thread. In that thread, Rashmun argued that the Razakars did not target Hindus, because some Hindu landlords supported the Razakars, and the Razakars would not kill their supporters. What's good for the Nizam is good for Aurangzeb. If the Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communalx100.

PS: This shall soon be cross-referenced, dotted, countersigned and filed in triplicate on the Aurangzeb thread.

the internet articles i read claimed that the razakars were supported by many hindu landlords and also that the razakars included low caste hindus amongst them. but then the Nizam's son stated (in a statement which i posted on the Nizam thread recently) that the razakars may have targeted hindus, although he clarified that the Razakars were not under the control of the Nizam and that the Nizam and his army never targeted hindus. in view of the statement of the Nizam's son i have changed my view on the Razakars. what may have happened is that some of the muslim razakars targeted hindus, whereas the hindu razakars did not target hindus.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"
Now, this is awfully interesting. This proves that Aurangzeb was not communal at all! Aurangzeb did not target Hindus with his jaziya. His imposition of jaziya was not targeted against Hindus for their religious beliefs -- otherwise why would be exempt his Hindu nobles and chieftains?

This train of logic is brought to you courtesy of Rashmun, in the Nizam thread. In that thread, Rashmun argued that the Razakars did not target Hindus, because some Hindu landlords supported the Razakars, and the Razakars would not kill their supporters. What's good for the Nizam is good for Aurangzeb. If the Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communalx100.

PS: This shall soon be cross-referenced, dotted, countersigned and filed in triplicate on the Aurangzeb thread.

the internet articles i read claimed that the razakars were supported by many hindu landlords and also that the razakars included low caste hindus amongst them. but then the Nizam's son stated (in a statement which i posted on the Nizam thread recently) that the razakars may have targeted hindus, although he clarified that the Razakars were not under the control of the Nizam and that the Nizam and his army never targeted hindus. in view of the statement of the Nizam's son i have changed my view on the Razakars. what may have happened is that some of the muslim razakars targeted hindus, whereas the hindu razakars did not target hindus.

the objective of the razakars was to preserve Nizam's rule and prevent integration of the state of hyderabad with india. since most people in the state of hyderabad wanted integration with india, and further since most people in the state of hyderabad were hindus, is is natural that most people who ended up being targeted by the razakars were hindus.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"
Now, this is awfully interesting. This proves that Aurangzeb was not communal at all! Aurangzeb did not target Hindus with his jaziya. His imposition of jaziya was not targeted against Hindus for their religious beliefs -- otherwise why would be exempt his Hindu nobles and chieftains?

This train of logic is brought to you courtesy of Rashmun, in the Nizam thread. In that thread, Rashmun argued that the Razakars did not target Hindus, because some Hindu landlords supported the Razakars, and the Razakars would not kill their supporters. What's good for the Nizam is good for Aurangzeb. If the Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communalx100.

PS: This shall soon be cross-referenced, dotted, countersigned and filed in triplicate on the Aurangzeb thread.

the internet articles i read claimed that the razakars were supported by many hindu landlords and also that the razakars included low caste hindus amongst them. but then the Nizam's son stated (in a statement which i posted on the Nizam thread recently) that the razakars may have targeted hindus, although he clarified that the Razakars were not under the control of the Nizam and that the Nizam and his army never targeted hindus. in view of the statement of the Nizam's son i have changed my view on the Razakars. what may have happened is that some of the muslim razakars targeted hindus, whereas the hindu razakars did not target hindus.
Ah, the contortions you will go to in order to maintain your mutually contradictory positions!

The simple truth is this: if the Nizam is not communal, Aurangzeb is not communal either.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:50 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"
Now, this is awfully interesting. This proves that Aurangzeb was not communal at all! Aurangzeb did not target Hindus with his jaziya. His imposition of jaziya was not targeted against Hindus for their religious beliefs -- otherwise why would be exempt his Hindu nobles and chieftains?

This train of logic is brought to you courtesy of Rashmun, in the Nizam thread. In that thread, Rashmun argued that the Razakars did not target Hindus, because some Hindu landlords supported the Razakars, and the Razakars would not kill their supporters. What's good for the Nizam is good for Aurangzeb. If the Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communalx100.

PS: This shall soon be cross-referenced, dotted, countersigned and filed in triplicate on the Aurangzeb thread.

the internet articles i read claimed that the razakars were supported by many hindu landlords and also that the razakars included low caste hindus amongst them. but then the Nizam's son stated (in a statement which i posted on the Nizam thread recently) that the razakars may have targeted hindus, although he clarified that the Razakars were not under the control of the Nizam and that the Nizam and his army never targeted hindus. in view of the statement of the Nizam's son i have changed my view on the Razakars. what may have happened is that some of the muslim razakars targeted hindus, whereas the hindu razakars did not target hindus.
Ah, the contortions you will go to in order to maintain your mutually contradictory positions!

The simple truth is this: if the Nizam is not communal, Aurangzeb is not communal either.

Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya. Nizam did not impose jaziya, and further he did not have direct control over razakars. Nizam's army never targeted hindus.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.
Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on his Hindu nobles and chieftains. So his jaziya was to raise taxes to finance the good works of his administration -- nothing wrong with that.

Here is a comparison of the two kings.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNo-
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNo-
Praised for generosityYesYes-
Considered a miserYesYes-
Had love for booksYesYes-
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:07 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.
Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on his Hindu nobles and chieftains. So his jaziya was to raise taxes to finance the good works of his administration -- nothing wrong with that.

besides the jaziya not being imposed on nobles and chieftans it was also not imposed on women, children, and the elderly. and it is true that Aurangzeb felt more funds were needed to finance his military campaigns in the deccan for which purpose he decided to reimpose jaziya. never the less, in order to avoid history's accusation at Aurangzeb that he was communal, he should have imposed the tax on young and middle-aged men of all religions. The fact that young and middle-aged muslims were exempt from paying the extra tax means that Aurangzeb cannot evade history's charge that he really did have a communal mindset.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:14 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.
Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on his Hindu nobles and chieftains. So his jaziya was to raise taxes to finance the good works of his administration -- nothing wrong with that.

besides the jaziya not being imposed on nobles and chieftans it was also not imposed on women, children, and the elderly. and it is true that Aurangzeb felt more funds were needed to finance his military campaigns in the deccan for which purpose he decided to reimpose jaziya. never the less, in order to avoid history's accusation at Aurangzeb that he was communal, he should have imposed the tax on young and middle-aged men of all religions. The fact that young and middle-aged muslims were exempt from paying the extra tax means that Aurangzeb cannot evade history's charge that he really did have a communal mindset.

See, Aurangzeb was really a good guy. He spared women, children and the elderly. Let me revise my table then.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same

With this solid proof, you really have to agree with me that overall Aurangzeb is less communal than the Nizam.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?

you bringing shivaji's parentage into this topic only shows your low nature nothing else .

i didnt say shivaji was a sisodia or rana pratap's descendant . rather shivaji claimed falsely to be so . it was his way of paying homage to the great rana .

what are the exact details about shivaji's parentage? did he come from a broken family? who exactly was Shivaji's father? do u think it is justified to ban the books by james laine and jayant lele?

on another note, i want you to know that i am a great admirer of Shivaji and i much appreciated reading his letter to Aurangzeb. As i wrote earlier:

In Sir Jadunath Sarkar's 'Shivaji' pgs 320-323, one finds the english translation of a remarkable letter that the renowned Maratha leader Shivaji had written to the mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The letter was written three years prior to Shivaji's death, soon after Aurangzeb had imposed jaziya on hindus. The letter opens by paying a tribute to Akbar's policy in the sphere of religion.

"That architect of the fabric of Empire, Akbar Padshah, adopted the admirable policy of universal harmony in relation to all the various sects, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, materialists, atheists, brahmins, and Jain priests. The aim of his liberal heart was to cherish and protect all the people. So he became famous under the title of Jagat Guru, the world's spiritual guide."

This is followed by similar appreciative references to Jahangir and Shah Jahan. Shivaji continues:

'They [i.e. Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan--Rashmun], too, had the power to levy the jaziya, but they did not give place to bigotry in their hearts as they considered all men, high and low, created by God, to be examples of the nature of diverse creeds and temperaments....Prayer and praise for these three pure souls will dwell forever in the hearts and tongues of mankind.'

The next point Shivaji makes to Aurangzeb is even more significant.

'Your peasants are downtrodden; the yield of every village has declined; it is a reign in which the army is in ferment, the merchants complain, the muslims cry, the hindus are grilled, most men lack bread at night and in the day inflame their own cheeks by slapping them in anguish. How can the royal spirit permit you to add the hardship of the jaziya to this grievous state of things?'

So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"

Shivaji then goes on to say that the jaziya could be excused if there was such peace and prosperity under Aurangzeb's rule that a beautiful woman could travel unmolested from one part of his kingdom to another, but such a condition does not exist.

The last point of Shivaji's letter is also extremely important.

'If you believe in the true Divine Book and the Word of God , you will find there that God is styled Rabb-ul-alamin, the lord of all men, and not Rabb-ul-mussalmin, the lord of the Mohammedans only. Verily Islam and Hinduism are terms of contrast. If it be a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted in rememberance of Him only. If it be a temple, the bell is rung in yearning of Him only. To show bigotry for any man's creed and practices is equivalent to altering the words of the Holy Book.'


http://rivr.sulekha.com/shivaji-letter-to-aurangzeb_432973_blog

ashdoc, please share your views about Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb. Do you agree with Shivaji's high praise for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan ; or do you think Shivaji is guilty of distorting history in his letter to Aurangzeb?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:ashdoc, please share your views about Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb. Do you agree with Shivaji's high praise for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan ; or do you think Shivaji is guilty of distorting history in his letter to Aurangzeb?
In the same spirit, do you agree with Guru Gobind Singh's praise of Aurangzeb? https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64247
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:39 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:ashdoc, please share your views about Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb. Do you agree with Shivaji's high praise for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan ; or do you think Shivaji is guilty of distorting history in his letter to Aurangzeb?
In the same spirit, do you agree with Guru Gobind Singh's praise of Aurangzeb? https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64247

i consider Guru Gobind Singh's writings praising Aurangzeb to be spurious. I do not think he showered Aurangzeb with high praise although it is true that he was about to meet Aurangzeb for having some kind of a peace agreement when news arrived to him that Aurangzeb was now dead.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:i consider Guru Gobind Singh's writings praising Aurangzeb to be spurious. I do not think he showered Aurangzeb with high praise
Why do you think this? Online sources of Sikh scripture consistently show these as part of the Guru's writings. These verses are recited by the Sikh faithful at gurdwaras. It is clear that Sikhs consider it the genuine work of Guru Gobind Singh.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:48 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i consider Guru Gobind Singh's writings praising Aurangzeb to be spurious. I do not think he showered Aurangzeb with high praise
Why do you think this? Online sources of Sikh scripture consistently show these as part of the Guru's writings. These verses are recited by the Sikh faithful at gurdwaras. It is clear that Sikhs consider it the genuine work of Guru Gobind Singh.

--> not true.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:49 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.
Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on his Hindu nobles and chieftains. So his jaziya was to raise taxes to finance the good works of his administration -- nothing wrong with that.

besides the jaziya not being imposed on nobles and chieftans it was also not imposed on women, children, and the elderly. and it is true that Aurangzeb felt more funds were needed to finance his military campaigns in the deccan for which purpose he decided to reimpose jaziya. never the less, in order to avoid history's accusation at Aurangzeb that he was communal, he should have imposed the tax on young and middle-aged men of all religions. The fact that young and middle-aged muslims were exempt from paying the extra tax means that Aurangzeb cannot evade history's charge that he really did have a communal mindset.

See, Aurangzeb was really a good guy. He spared women, children and the elderly. Let me revise my table then.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same

With this solid proof, you really have to agree with me that overall Aurangzeb is less communal than the Nizam.

there are numerous flaws in your table.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:52 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i consider Guru Gobind Singh's writings praising Aurangzeb to be spurious. I do not think he showered Aurangzeb with high praise
Why do you think this? Online sources of Sikh scripture consistently show these as part of the Guru's writings. These verses are recited by the Sikh faithful at gurdwaras. It is clear that Sikhs consider it the genuine work of Guru Gobind Singh.

--> not true.
You are wrong. https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64247

I have posted three online sources of Sikh scripture which show these verses with translations.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf, page 34
http://www.unp.me/f15/zafarnama-guru-gobind-singh-ji-da-likhiya-khat-auranzeb-nu-17015/
http://www.info-sikh.com/EEZPage1.html

I also posted a Youtube video of a recitation of the verses at a gurdwara.



You have not shown any evidence at all that these verses are "spurious."
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:54 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i consider Guru Gobind Singh's writings praising Aurangzeb to be spurious. I do not think he showered Aurangzeb with high praise
Why do you think this? Online sources of Sikh scripture consistently show these as part of the Guru's writings. These verses are recited by the Sikh faithful at gurdwaras. It is clear that Sikhs consider it the genuine work of Guru Gobind Singh.

--> not true.
You are wrong. https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64247

I have posted three online sources of Sikh scripture which show these verses with translations.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf, page 34
http://www.unp.me/f15/zafarnama-guru-gobind-singh-ji-da-likhiya-khat-auranzeb-nu-17015/
http://www.info-sikh.com/EEZPage1.html

I also posted a Youtube video of a recitation of the verses at a gurdwara.



You have not shown any evidence at all that these verses are "spurious."

The only authentic Sikh scripture is Adi Granth. Please give references from the Adi Granth to make your case. Which verse in Adi Granth extolls Aurangzeb?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.
Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on his Hindu nobles and chieftains. So his jaziya was to raise taxes to finance the good works of his administration -- nothing wrong with that.

besides the jaziya not being imposed on nobles and chieftans it was also not imposed on women, children, and the elderly. and it is true that Aurangzeb felt more funds were needed to finance his military campaigns in the deccan for which purpose he decided to reimpose jaziya. never the less, in order to avoid history's accusation at Aurangzeb that he was communal, he should have imposed the tax on young and middle-aged men of all religions. The fact that young and middle-aged muslims were exempt from paying the extra tax means that Aurangzeb cannot evade history's charge that he really did have a communal mindset.

See, Aurangzeb was really a good guy. He spared women, children and the elderly. Let me revise my table then.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same

With this solid proof, you really have to agree with me that overall Aurangzeb is less communal than the Nizam.

there are numerous flaws in your table.
I agree that the formatting of the table is not ideal. The content is on average ~ 5.5 times superior in quality to much of the Mughal material we have seen on this forum.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:You are wrong. https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64247

I have posted three online sources of Sikh scripture which show these verses with translations.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf, page 34
http://www.unp.me/f15/zafarnama-guru-gobind-singh-ji-da-likhiya-khat-auranzeb-nu-17015/
http://www.info-sikh.com/EEZPage1.html

I also posted a Youtube video of a recitation of the verses at a gurdwara.



You have not shown any evidence at all that these verses are "spurious."

The only authentic Sikh scripture is Adi Granth. Please give references from the Adi Granth to make your case. Which verse in Adi Granth extolls Aurangzeb?
You are thoroughly confused as usual. The claim is not that Aurangzeb is extolled in the Adi Granth. The claim is that Aurangzeb is extolled by Guru Gobind Singh in his Zafarnama. This claim has been backed up with ample evidence, including video of a recitation at a gurdwara.

PS: BTW, this post of yours gave me a case of seva deja vu!
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:04 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:You are wrong. https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64247

I have posted three online sources of Sikh scripture which show these verses with translations.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf, page 34
http://www.unp.me/f15/zafarnama-guru-gobind-singh-ji-da-likhiya-khat-auranzeb-nu-17015/
http://www.info-sikh.com/EEZPage1.html

I also posted a Youtube video of a recitation of the verses at a gurdwara.



You have not shown any evidence at all that these verses are "spurious."

The only authentic Sikh scripture is Adi Granth. Please give references from the Adi Granth to make your case. Which verse in Adi Granth extolls Aurangzeb?
You are thoroughly confused as usual. The claim is not that Aurangzeb is extolled in the Adi Granth. The claim is that Aurangzeb is extolled by Guru Gobind Singh in his Zafarnama. This claim has been backed up with ample evidence, including video of a recitation at a gurdwara.

PS: BTW, this post of yours gave me a case of seva deja vu!

In fact, Aurangzeb is criticized in the Zafarnama of Guru Gobind Singh.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:06 pm

Rashmun wrote:In fact, Aurangzeb is criticized in the Zafarnama of Guru Gobind Singh.
Guru Gobind Singh says in the Zafarnama:

O Aurangzeb, king of kings, fortunate are you,
An expert swordsman and a horseman too: (89)

Handsome is your person and your intellect high,
Master of the lands, ruler and emperor. (90)

A skilled wielder of the sword and clever in administration,
A master-warrior and a man of charitable disposition. (91)

You grant riches and lands in charity,
O one of handsome body and brilliant mind. (92)

Great is your munificence, in war you are like a mountain,
Of angelic disposition, your splendor is like that of Pleiades. (93)

You are the king of kings, ornament of the throne of the world:
Master of the world, but far from religion! (94)


This is richer praise than anything any Sikh leader ever gave the Nizam.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:08 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In fact, Aurangzeb is criticized in the Zafarnama of Guru Gobind Singh.
Guru Gobind Singh says in the Zafarnama:

O Aurangzeb, king of kings, fortunate are you,
An expert swordsman and a horseman too: (89)

Handsome is your person and your intellect high,
Master of the lands, ruler and emperor. (90)

A skilled wielder of the sword and clever in administration,
A master-warrior and a man of charitable disposition. (91)

You grant riches and lands in charity,
O one of handsome body and brilliant mind. (92)

Great is your munificence, in war you are like a mountain,
Of angelic disposition, your splendor is like that of Pleiades. (93)

You are the king of kings, ornament of the throne of the world:
Master of the world, but far from religion! (94)


This is richer praise than anything any Sikh leader ever gave the Nizam.

that is why i am saying the verses you are giving are spurious. Guru Gobind Singh never praised Aurangzeb in Zafarnama; in fact he criticized Aurangzeb.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:that is why i am saying the verses you are giving are spurious. Guru Gobind Singh never praised Aurangzeb in Zafarnama; in fact he criticized Aurangzeb.
These verses are present in all three online versions of the Zafarnama I already posted. They are also recited at the gurdwara recital I posted. We have four Sikh sources with these verses in the Zafarnama on one side, and on the other side, your empty assertion.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:20 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:that is why i am saying the verses you are giving are spurious. Guru Gobind Singh never praised Aurangzeb in Zafarnama; in fact he criticized Aurangzeb.
These verses are present in all three online versions of the Zafarnama I already posted. They are also recited at the gurdwara recital I posted. We have four Sikh sources with these verses in the Zafarnama on one side, and on the other side, your empty assertion.

In this letter, Guru Gobind Singh reminds Aurangzeb how he and his henchmen had broken their oaths sworn upon the Quran. He also states that in spite of his several sufferings, he had won a moral victory over the Emperor who had broken all his vows. Despite sending a huge army to capture or kill the Guru, the Mughal forces did not succeed in their mission.
In the 111 verses of this notice, Guru Gobind Singh rebukes Aurangzeb for his weaknesses as a human being and for excesses as a leader. Guru Ji also confirms his confidence and his unflinching faith in the Almighty even after suffering extreme personal loss of his father, mother, and all four of his sons to Aurangzeb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zafarnamah


Meanwhile, Charvaka, please share your thoughts on Maharaja Chandu Lal, the Hindu Prime Minister of the Nizam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharaja_Chandu_Lal

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:26 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:that is why i am saying the verses you are giving are spurious. Guru Gobind Singh never praised Aurangzeb in Zafarnama; in fact he criticized Aurangzeb.
These verses are present in all three online versions of the Zafarnama I already posted. They are also recited at the gurdwara recital I posted. We have four Sikh sources with these verses in the Zafarnama on one side, and on the other side, your empty assertion.

In this letter, Guru Gobind Singh reminds Aurangzeb how he and his henchmen had broken their oaths sworn upon the Quran. He also states that in spite of his several sufferings, he had won a moral victory over the Emperor who had broken all his vows. Despite sending a huge army to capture or kill the Guru, the Mughal forces did not succeed in their mission.
In the 111 verses of this notice, Guru Gobind Singh rebukes Aurangzeb for his weaknesses as a human being and for excesses as a leader. Guru Ji also confirms his confidence and his unflinching faith in the Almighty even after suffering extreme personal loss of his father, mother, and all four of his sons to Aurangzeb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zafarnamah


In addition to doing all that, Guru Gobind Singh praises Aurangzeb in these words:

O Aurangzeb, king of kings, fortunate are you,
An expert swordsman and a horseman too: (89)

Handsome is your person and your intellect high,
Master of the lands, ruler and emperor. (90)

A skilled wielder of the sword and clever in administration,
A master-warrior and a man of charitable disposition. (91)

You grant riches and lands in charity,
O one of handsome body and brilliant mind. (92)

Great is your munificence, in war you are like a mountain,
Of angelic disposition, your splendor is like that of Pleiades. (93)

You are the king of kings, ornament of the throne of the world:
Master of the world, but far from religion! (94)


No Nizam was ever praised in such lavish terms by any major Sikh or Hindu religious leader.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.
Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on his Hindu nobles and chieftains. So his jaziya was to raise taxes to finance the good works of his administration -- nothing wrong with that.

besides the jaziya not being imposed on nobles and chieftans it was also not imposed on women, children, and the elderly. and it is true that Aurangzeb felt more funds were needed to finance his military campaigns in the deccan for which purpose he decided to reimpose jaziya. never the less, in order to avoid history's accusation at Aurangzeb that he was communal, he should have imposed the tax on young and middle-aged men of all religions. The fact that young and middle-aged muslims were exempt from paying the extra tax means that Aurangzeb cannot evade history's charge that he really did have a communal mindset.

See, Aurangzeb was really a good guy. He spared women, children and the elderly. Let me revise my table then.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same

With this solid proof, you really have to agree with me that overall Aurangzeb is less communal than the Nizam.

there are numerous factual flaws in your table.

*corrected*

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on his Hindu nobles and chieftains. So his jaziya was to raise taxes to finance the good works of his administration -- nothing wrong with that.

besides the jaziya not being imposed on nobles and chieftans it was also not imposed on women, children, and the elderly. and it is true that Aurangzeb felt more funds were needed to finance his military campaigns in the deccan for which purpose he decided to reimpose jaziya. never the less, in order to avoid history's accusation at Aurangzeb that he was communal, he should have imposed the tax on young and middle-aged men of all religions. The fact that young and middle-aged muslims were exempt from paying the extra tax means that Aurangzeb cannot evade history's charge that he really did have a communal mindset.

See, Aurangzeb was really a good guy. He spared women, children and the elderly. Let me revise my table then.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same

With this solid proof, you really have to agree with me that overall Aurangzeb is less communal than the Nizam.

there are numerous factual flaws in your table.

*corrected*
Aww, don't be so coy. Point them out if you can.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:31 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

besides the jaziya not being imposed on nobles and chieftans it was also not imposed on women, children, and the elderly. and it is true that Aurangzeb felt more funds were needed to finance his military campaigns in the deccan for which purpose he decided to reimpose jaziya. never the less, in order to avoid history's accusation at Aurangzeb that he was communal, he should have imposed the tax on young and middle-aged men of all religions. The fact that young and middle-aged muslims were exempt from paying the extra tax means that Aurangzeb cannot evade history's charge that he really did have a communal mindset.

See, Aurangzeb was really a good guy. He spared women, children and the elderly. Let me revise my table then.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same

With this solid proof, you really have to agree with me that overall Aurangzeb is less communal than the Nizam.

there are numerous factual flaws in your table.

*corrected*
Aww, don't be so coy. Point them out if you can.

I would have pointed out the factual flaws if they would have been few in number.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:I would have pointed out the factual flaws if they would have been few in number.
Hahaha. If there really were many factual flaws, you would have typed out a long, numbered list of those flaws. I call your bluff, sir.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:35 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I would have pointed out the factual flaws if they would have been few in number.
Hahaha. If there really were many factual flaws, you would have typed out a long, numbered list of those flaws. I call your bluff, sir.

i find it boring to stoop to your level of historical knowledge to make my point. you even did not know for instance that jaziya was not imposed on women, children, and the elderly by Aurangzeb. this was also the reason why Seva used to call you 'Mudboy'--because you would come along with your half baked knowledge and start throwing around mud at people who had more knowledge than you in the subjects under discussion.


Last edited by Rashmun on Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:38 pm

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same
Did not attempt to rape brother's widowYesYesBoth about the same
In the face of this overwhelming evidence, if Rashmun maintains that Aurangzeb was communal while the Nizam was not, that is because he has personal hatred for Aurangzeb, because Aurangzeb had roughed up some of his ancestors a little (just to clarify: I meant Rashmun's ancestors, although Aurangzeb also roughed up some of his own ancestors a little too -- but that was before he lost his head so it was not a bad action on his part).

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64355
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:42 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I would have pointed out the factual flaws if they would have been few in number.
Hahaha. If there really were many factual flaws, you would have typed out a long, numbered list of those flaws. I call your bluff, sir.

i find it boring to stoop to your level of historical knowledge to make my point. you even did not know for instance that jaziya was not imposed on women, children, and the elderly by Aurangzeb. this was also the reason why Seva used to call you 'Mudboy'--because you would come along with your half baked knowledge and start throwing around mud at people who had more knowledge than you in the subjects under discussion.

Charvaka, on Sulekha CH you had claimed that your knowledge of Indian philosophy was 'miniscule' compared to mine. I believe the same applies to Mughal history.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:48 pm

panini press wrote:Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same
Did not attempt to rape brother's widowYesYesBoth about the same
In the face of this overwhelming evidence, if Rashmun maintains that Aurangzeb was communal while the Nizam was not, that is because he has personal hatred for Aurangzeb, because Aurangzeb had roughed up some of his ancestors a little (just to clarify: I meant Rashmun's ancestors, although Aurangzeb also roughed up some of his own ancestors a little too -- but that was before he lost his head so it was not a bad action on his part).

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64355

Aurangzeb died in 1707. You and I have no way of knowing how my ancestors were affected by Aurangzeb's rule. But the Nizam died only in the 1960's and Razakars were operating shortly before and shortly after independence. So Charvaka, please tell us what the Razakars did to your ancestors?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb died in 1707. You and I have no way of knowing how my ancestors were affected by Aurangzeb's rule. But the Nizam died only in the 1960's and Razakars were operating shortly before and shortly after independence. So Charvaka, please tell us what the Razakars did to your ancestors?
It is abundantly clear that you are desperately looking for a distraction. I called your bluff -- if you have any evidence of factual flaws in my table, this is the time to present them. If not, I will only copy-paste the table again and again.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same
Did not attempt to rape brother's widowYesYesBoth about the same
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I would have pointed out the factual flaws if they would have been few in number.
Hahaha. If there really were many factual flaws, you would have typed out a long, numbered list of those flaws. I call your bluff, sir.

i find it boring to stoop to your level of historical knowledge to make my point. you even did not know for instance that jaziya was not imposed on women, children, and the elderly by Aurangzeb. this was also the reason why Seva used to call you 'Mudboy'--because you would come along with your half baked knowledge and start throwing around mud at people who had more knowledge than you in the subjects under discussion.

Charvaka, on Sulekha CH you had claimed that your knowledge of Indian philosophy was 'miniscule' compared to mine. I believe the same applies to Mughal history.

.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:08 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb died in 1707. You and I have no way of knowing how my ancestors were affected by Aurangzeb's rule. But the Nizam died only in the 1960's and Razakars were operating shortly before and shortly after independence. So Charvaka, please tell us what the Razakars did to your ancestors?
It is abundantly clear that you are desperately looking for a distraction. I called your bluff -- if you have any evidence of factual flaws in my table, this is the time to present them. If not, I will only copy-paste the table again and again.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chiefYesNoAurangzeb
Policy made by HindusYesNoAurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind SinghYesNoAurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in governmentYesNoAurangzeb
Built temple in ChitrakootYesNoAurangzeb
Formed private army to target all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Imposed jaziya on all HindusNoNoBoth about the same
Praised for generosityYesYesBoth about the same
Considered a miserYesYesBoth about the same
Had love for booksYesYesBoth about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderlyYesYesBoth about the same
Did not attempt to rape brother's widowYesYesBoth about the same
.
Idéfix
Idéfix

Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by ashdoc Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?

you bringing shivaji's parentage into this topic only shows your low nature nothing else .

i didnt say shivaji was a sisodia or rana pratap's descendant . rather shivaji claimed falsely to be so . it was his way of paying homage to the great rana .

what are the exact details about shivaji's parentage? did he come from a broken family? who exactly was Shivaji's father? do u think it is justified to ban the books by james laine and jayant lele?

what a low level man you are..... Shocked
since you are utterly defeated in proving rana pratap to be an ass but have been proved to be an ass yourself you conveniently move the topic from rana pratap to shivaji's parentage LoL Laughing

shivaji was son of shahaji bhosale and jijabai . his father lost interest in his mother in her later years and married another woman and moved to banglur ( now bangalore ). however he maintained contact with jijabai and shivaji and gave shivaji a jagir to administer around pune .

when shivaji was young and shahaji was away at bangalore he had deputed dadaji kondev as shivaji's guardian . because dadaji was involved in shivaji's upbringing james laine has said in his book that some people jokingly say that shivaji's father was not shahaji but dadaji . james laine mentions this only as a joke and has not really claimed dadaji to be shivaji's father .
but a maratha group called sambhaji brigade was incensed by this joke and attacked the bhandarkar oriental research institute in pune which had been used by james laine for research for his book---thereby stoking some controversy .

ashdoc

Posts : 2256
Join date : 2011-05-04

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:08 pm

ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?

you bringing shivaji's parentage into this topic only shows your low nature nothing else .

i didnt say shivaji was a sisodia or rana pratap's descendant . rather shivaji claimed falsely to be so . it was his way of paying homage to the great rana .

what are the exact details about shivaji's parentage? did he come from a broken family? who exactly was Shivaji's father? do u think it is justified to ban the books by james laine and jayant lele?

what a low level man you are..... Shocked
since you are utterly defeated in proving rana pratap to be an ass but have been proved to be an ass yourself you conveniently move the topic from rana pratap to shivaji's parentage LoL Laughing

shivaji was son of shahaji bhosale and jijabai . his father lost interest in his mother in her later years and married another woman and moved to banglur ( now bangalore ). however he maintained contact with jijabai and shivaji and gave shivaji a jagir to administer around pune .

when shivaji was young and shahaji was away at bangalore he had deputed dadaji kondev as shivaji's guardian . because dadaji was involved in shivaji's upbringing james laine has said in his book that some people jokingly say that shivaji's father was not shahaji but dadaji . james laine mentions this only as a joke and has not really claimed dadaji to be shivaji's father .
but a maratha group called sambhaji brigade was incensed by this joke and attacked the bhandarkar oriental research institute in pune which had been used by james laine for research for his book---thereby stoking some controversy .

thanks for these details ashdoc. please also share your opinion on Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb (extracts of which i gave earlier in this thread) in which Shivaji extolls Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan. Do you share Shivaji's opinion of Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by ashdoc Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:15 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

On another note, isn't it true that there are some questions on Shivaji's parentage? Have you read the books by James Laine and Jayant Lele (which have been banned in India)?

you bringing shivaji's parentage into this topic only shows your low nature nothing else .

i didnt say shivaji was a sisodia or rana pratap's descendant . rather shivaji claimed falsely to be so . it was his way of paying homage to the great rana .

what are the exact details about shivaji's parentage? did he come from a broken family? who exactly was Shivaji's father? do u think it is justified to ban the books by james laine and jayant lele?

on another note, i want you to know that i am a great admirer of Shivaji and i much appreciated reading his letter to Aurangzeb. As i wrote earlier:

In Sir Jadunath Sarkar's 'Shivaji' pgs 320-323, one finds the english translation of a remarkable letter that the renowned Maratha leader Shivaji had written to the mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The letter was written three years prior to Shivaji's death, soon after Aurangzeb had imposed jaziya on hindus. The letter opens by paying a tribute to Akbar's policy in the sphere of religion.

"That architect of the fabric of Empire, Akbar Padshah, adopted the admirable policy of universal harmony in relation to all the various sects, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, materialists, atheists, brahmins, and Jain priests. The aim of his liberal heart was to cherish and protect all the people. So he became famous under the title of Jagat Guru, the world's spiritual guide."

This is followed by similar appreciative references to Jahangir and Shah Jahan. Shivaji continues:

'They [i.e. Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan--Rashmun], too, had the power to levy the jaziya, but they did not give place to bigotry in their hearts as they considered all men, high and low, created by God, to be examples of the nature of diverse creeds and temperaments....Prayer and praise for these three pure souls will dwell forever in the hearts and tongues of mankind.'

The next point Shivaji makes to Aurangzeb is even more significant.

'Your peasants are downtrodden; the yield of every village has declined; it is a reign in which the army is in ferment, the merchants complain, the muslims cry, the hindus are grilled, most men lack bread at night and in the day inflame their own cheeks by slapping them in anguish. How can the royal spirit permit you to add the hardship of the jaziya to this grievous state of things?'

So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"

Shivaji then goes on to say that the jaziya could be excused if there was such peace and prosperity under Aurangzeb's rule that a beautiful woman could travel unmolested from one part of his kingdom to another, but such a condition does not exist.

The last point of Shivaji's letter is also extremely important.

'If you believe in the true Divine Book and the Word of God , you will find there that God is styled Rabb-ul-alamin, the lord of all men, and not Rabb-ul-mussalmin, the lord of the Mohammedans only. Verily Islam and Hinduism are terms of contrast. If it be a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted in rememberance of Him only. If it be a temple, the bell is rung in yearning of Him only. To show bigotry for any man's creed and practices is equivalent to altering the words of the Holy Book.'


http://rivr.sulekha.com/shivaji-letter-to-aurangzeb_432973_blog

ashdoc, please share your views about Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb. Do you agree with Shivaji's high praise for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan ; or do you think Shivaji is guilty of distorting history in his letter to Aurangzeb?

shivaji had seen only muslim tyranny since his childhood , so akbar jahangir and shah jahan might have seemed good to him---at least better than the bijapur sultans whose rule he grew up under as well as aurangzeb .

but we live in happier times , and have access to better historical evidence than shivaji .

now shah jahan cannot be really exempted from bigotry , for he destroyed numerous hindu temples during his reign .
of course , he was not a blind fanatic like aurangzeb and was smart enough to know that he should not antagonise the majority population of his empire too much---so he did not impose jizya . but many historians accuse him of creating conditions for the rise of a monster like aurangzeb . of course , in his later years he did try to make amends by supporting the liberal dara shikoh but that was due his smartness as he came to realise that aurangzeb would drive the empire to ruin , not because he had turned liberal .

as far as akbar is concerned he may have been liberal in his religious policies but his conquest of north india and part of the deccan was full of mass massacre and destruction . he still showed the barbarism of the turkomongols . and he kidnapped for himself any woman he liked , both hindu and muslim . in this he did not care if the woman concerned was married and had children . she was forcibly evicted from her family to fulfill the emperor's barbaric lust....when a maulavi started a campaign against this akbar punished him by kidnapping his wife too---'' and then for the next two days jahapanah basked and bathed in her beauty before consigning her into the depths of his harem '' , says akbars chronicler.....note that after sleeping with her akbar did not touch her ever again but still she was not returned to her family---she was kept until her death as a captive in the harem....any woman once touched by akbar was HIS woman and was not to be returned back.....

if jahangir did not indulge in mass massacre that was due to his inertia because of opium and wine addiction---he did not conquer anything so he had less chance to indulge in killing and bloodlust , indeed the empire lost kandahar during his reign and did not gain anything . of course his inertia did not prevent him from trying to unseat the ' great ' akbar and become king himself while akbar was alive---but of course he failed in that . and jahangir did kill a sikh guru for the ostensible reason that the guru supported the rebel son khusrau---but in jahangirnama he writes that he killed the sikh guru because the guru was not ready to convert to islam .

ashdoc

Posts : 2256
Join date : 2011-05-04

Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:31 pm

ashdoc wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:

you bringing shivaji's parentage into this topic only shows your low nature nothing else .

i didnt say shivaji was a sisodia or rana pratap's descendant . rather shivaji claimed falsely to be so . it was his way of paying homage to the great rana .

what are the exact details about shivaji's parentage? did he come from a broken family? who exactly was Shivaji's father? do u think it is justified to ban the books by james laine and jayant lele?

on another note, i want you to know that i am a great admirer of Shivaji and i much appreciated reading his letter to Aurangzeb. As i wrote earlier:

In Sir Jadunath Sarkar's 'Shivaji' pgs 320-323, one finds the english translation of a remarkable letter that the renowned Maratha leader Shivaji had written to the mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The letter was written three years prior to Shivaji's death, soon after Aurangzeb had imposed jaziya on hindus. The letter opens by paying a tribute to Akbar's policy in the sphere of religion.

"That architect of the fabric of Empire, Akbar Padshah, adopted the admirable policy of universal harmony in relation to all the various sects, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, materialists, atheists, brahmins, and Jain priests. The aim of his liberal heart was to cherish and protect all the people. So he became famous under the title of Jagat Guru, the world's spiritual guide."

This is followed by similar appreciative references to Jahangir and Shah Jahan. Shivaji continues:

'They [i.e. Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan--Rashmun], too, had the power to levy the jaziya, but they did not give place to bigotry in their hearts as they considered all men, high and low, created by God, to be examples of the nature of diverse creeds and temperaments....Prayer and praise for these three pure souls will dwell forever in the hearts and tongues of mankind.'

The next point Shivaji makes to Aurangzeb is even more significant.

'Your peasants are downtrodden; the yield of every village has declined; it is a reign in which the army is in ferment, the merchants complain, the muslims cry, the hindus are grilled, most men lack bread at night and in the day inflame their own cheeks by slapping them in anguish. How can the royal spirit permit you to add the hardship of the jaziya to this grievous state of things?'

So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"

Shivaji then goes on to say that the jaziya could be excused if there was such peace and prosperity under Aurangzeb's rule that a beautiful woman could travel unmolested from one part of his kingdom to another, but such a condition does not exist.

The last point of Shivaji's letter is also extremely important.

'If you believe in the true Divine Book and the Word of God , you will find there that God is styled Rabb-ul-alamin, the lord of all men, and not Rabb-ul-mussalmin, the lord of the Mohammedans only. Verily Islam and Hinduism are terms of contrast. If it be a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted in rememberance of Him only. If it be a temple, the bell is rung in yearning of Him only. To show bigotry for any man's creed and practices is equivalent to altering the words of the Holy Book.'


http://rivr.sulekha.com/shivaji-letter-to-aurangzeb_432973_blog

ashdoc, please share your views about Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb. Do you agree with Shivaji's high praise for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan ; or do you think Shivaji is guilty of distorting history in his letter to Aurangzeb?

shivaji had seen only muslim tyranny since his childhood , so akbar jahangir and shah jahan might have seemed good to him---at least better than the bijapur sultans whose rule he grew up under as well as aurangzeb .

but we live in happier times , and have access to better historical evidence than shivaji .

now shah jahan cannot be really exempted from bigotry , for he destroyed numerous hindu temples during his reign .
of course , he was not a blind fanatic like aurangzeb and was smart enough to know that he should not antagonise the majority population of his empire too much---so he did not impose jizya . but many historians accuse him of creating conditions for the rise of a monster like aurangzeb . of course , in his later years he did try to make amends by supporting the liberal dara shikoh but that was due his smartness as he came to realise that aurangzeb would drive the empire to ruin , not because he had turned liberal .

as far as akbar is concerned he may have been liberal in his religious policies but his conquest of north india and part of the deccan was full of mass massacre and destruction . he still showed the barbarism of the turkomongols . and he kidnapped for himself any woman he liked , both hindu and muslim . in this he did not care if the woman concerned was married and had children . she was forcibly evicted from her family to fulfill the emperor's barbaric lust....when a maulavi started a campaign against this akbar punished him by kidnapping his wife too---'' and then for the next two days jahapanah basked and bathed in her beauty before consigning her into the depths of his harem '' , says akbars chronicler.....note that after sleeping with her akbar did not touch her ever again but still she was not returned to her family---she was kept until her death as a captive in the harem....any woman once touched by akbar was HIS woman and was not to be returned back.....

if jahangir did not indulge in mass massacre that was due to his inertia because of opium and wine addiction---he did not conquer anything so he had less chance to indulge in killing and bloodlust , indeed the empire lost kandahar during his reign and did not gain anything . of course his inertia did not prevent him from trying to unseat the ' great ' akbar and become king himself while akbar was alive---but of course he failed in that . and jahangir did kill a sikh guru for the ostensible reason that the guru supported the rebel son khusrau---but in jahangirnama he writes that he killed the sikh guru because the guru was not ready to convert to islam .

i have read the autobiography of jahangir and i *know* that jahangir does NOT say that he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan because the guru did not convert to islam. in fact, jahangir explains in his autobiography that he ordered the execution because Arjan was guilty of treason: he had publicly supported Khusrau's rebellion and publicly blessed Khusrau by applying a tika on the rebel prince's forehead in public.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Was Rana Pratap an ass? Empty Re: Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum