Aurangzeb vs Nizam

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:53 pm

one major difference between Aurangzeb and Nizam is that Aurangzeb imposed jaziya on his subjects. Nizam did not do so. Of course, jaziya was not imposed on the nobility, and on women, children, and the elderly. But any form of fiscal discrimination on the basis of religion should have been avoided by Aurangzeb. Particularly so since there was historical baggage connected to this tax and it was resented by hindus. The fact that what Aurangzeb did was wrong is clear when one considers that jaziya was abolished shortly after his death.

Another point: there is evidence of Aurangzeb destroying some temples (though, of course, there is also evidence that he gave funding for construction and maintainance of certain other temples). Nizam never destroyed temples. Also, Nizam gave funding for various temples, gurudwaras, churches (besides giving funding for mosques).

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:54 pm

Rashmun wrote:one major difference between Aurangzeb and Nizam is that Aurangzeb imposed jaziya on his subjects. Nizam did not do so. Of course, jaziya was not imposed on the nobility, and on women, children, and the elderly. But any form of fiscal discrimination on the basis of religion should have been avoided by Aurangzeb. Particularly so since there was historical baggage connected to this tax and it was resented by hindus. The fact that what Aurangzeb did was wrong is clear when one considers that jaziya was abolished shortly after his death.

Another point: there is evidence of Aurangzeb destroying some temples (though, of course, there is also evidence that he gave funding for construction and maintainance of certain other temples). Nizam never destroyed temples. Also, Nizam gave funding for various temples, gurudwaras, churches (besides giving funding for mosques).

Aurangzeb was a strict puritan and did not patronize musicians, artists, etc. In his reign, art and music suffered a general decline due to lack of patronage. In contrast, the Nizam was a great patron of music, poets, artists, etc.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:57 pm

It is interesting to note that the Nizam gave a huge amount of fund as donation to the Benaras Hindu University. This meant that the Nizam was free of the disease of regionalism--he was actually prepared to give funding to projects which were outside the region he was ruling. It could be said that he was thinking like an Indian when he made the huge financial donation to Benaras Hindu University.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:59 pm

This is not true.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64540

The same methods that are required to prove that the Nizam is secular also yield the result the Aurangzeb is secular. Not that there is anything wrong with that result -- Rashmun just admit it instead of hiding it in the closet.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:It is interesting to note that the Nizam gave a huge amount of fund as donation to the Benaras Hindu University. This meant that the Nizam was free of the disease of regionalism--he was actually prepared to give funding to projects which were outside the region he was ruling. It could be said that he was thinking like an Indian when he made the huge financial donation to Benaras Hindu University.

if the Nizam would have been communal he would probably not have given a huge amount of donation to the Benaras Hindu University.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:01 pm

on another note, i deplore the naming of institutions with the word 'Hindu' or 'Muslim'. Like Benaras Hindu University or Aligarh University.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:03 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is interesting to note that the Nizam gave a huge amount of fund as donation to the Benaras Hindu University. This meant that the Nizam was free of the disease of regionalism--he was actually prepared to give funding to projects which were outside the region he was ruling. It could be said that he was thinking like an Indian when he made the huge financial donation to Benaras Hindu University.

if the Nizam would have been communal he would probably not have given a huge amount of donation to the Benaras Hindu University.

If Aurangzeb would have been communal he would probably not have given a huge amount of donation to Benaras Hindu temples.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64384

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:05 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is interesting to note that the Nizam gave a huge amount of fund as donation to the Benaras Hindu University. This meant that the Nizam was free of the disease of regionalism--he was actually prepared to give funding to projects which were outside the region he was ruling. It could be said that he was thinking like an Indian when he made the huge financial donation to Benaras Hindu University.

if the Nizam would have been communal he would probably not have given a huge amount of donation to the Benaras Hindu University.
If Aurangzeb would have been communal he would probably not have given a huge amount of donation to Benaras Hindu temples.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64384

Thanks to Rashmun for providing me such an easy and ready illustration of what I was talking about upthread: The same methods that are required to prove that the Nizam is secular also yield the result the Aurangzeb is secular. Not that there is anything wrong with that result -- Rashmun just admit it instead of hiding it in the closet.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:11 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is interesting to note that the Nizam gave a huge amount of fund as donation to the Benaras Hindu University. This meant that the Nizam was free of the disease of regionalism--he was actually prepared to give funding to projects which were outside the region he was ruling. It could be said that he was thinking like an Indian when he made the huge financial donation to Benaras Hindu University.

if the Nizam would have been communal he would probably not have given a huge amount of donation to the Benaras Hindu University.
If Aurangzeb would have been communal he would probably not have given a huge amount of donation to Benaras Hindu temples.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64384

the point is that on the one hand Aurangzeb destroyed some hindu temples, and on the other hand he gave funding for construction of and maintainance of several hindu temples. Nizam never destroyed any hindu temples.

by southindian Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:30 pm

Rashmun wrote:one major difference between Aurangzeb and Nizam is that Aurangzeb imposed jaziya on his subjects. Nizam did not do so. Of course, jaziya was not imposed on the nobility, and on women, children, and the elderly. But any form of fiscal discrimination on the basis of religion should have been avoided by Aurangzeb. Particularly so since there was historical baggage connected to this tax and it was resented by hindus. The fact that what Aurangzeb did was wrong is clear when one considers that jaziya was abolished shortly after his death.

Another point: there is evidence of Aurangzeb destroying some temples (though, of course, there is also evidence that he gave funding for construction and maintainance of certain other temples). Nizam never destroyed temples. Also, Nizam gave funding for various temples, gurudwaras, churches (besides giving funding for mosques).

If Nizam were living today, he would have imposed Jaziya on your contribution towards global warming. You generate hot air deserving to be levied through Jaziya.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:36 pm

All questions regarding comparisons between Aurangzeb and the Nizam have already been addressed here: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64552

This has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about donations to Hindu causes like temples and universities. Thanks Rashmun.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:Nizam never destroyed any hindu temples.

Here is what Wikipedia says:

Mahabubnagar was most likely an historically Buddhist area, as many historic temples were destroyed by the Asaf Jahi rulers.

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

PS: Thank you, world, for Wikipedia. Thank you, Rashmun, for the Rashmun Method. Using those two together, I can prove almost anything.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:48 pm

Oh, BTW, before Rashmun gets all confused: Asaf Jahi = another name for the dynasty of the Nizams.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:51 pm

More evidence of temples destroyed by the Nizam.

After the Marathas' disaster at Panipat, Nizam 'Ali invaded Maharashtra with about 60,000 troops, but he lost allies by destroying Hindu temples at Toka and was defeated near Puna in January 1762.

http://www.san.beck.org/2-10-Marathas1707-1800.html

All right, Rashmun, time for next argument for why Aurangzeb is communal while the Nizam is not. Let us have it.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:54 pm

this thread is about Nizam, not Nizams. By Nizam i am referring to the last Nizam. I did not realize that Charvaka's hatred extended towards all Nizams, not just last Nizam.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:56 pm

One last piece on the Nizams' destruction of Hindu temples.

From the book: Marathwada under the Nizams, 1724 to 1948, pages 186-187.

Several temples were either converted into mosques or destroyed completely, while some remains (sic) out of worship for years together. Mr. John Law observed in his book, "In vain I looked for modern Hindu temples, the ruin of old one I found... Mosques I saw everywhere, but when I asked where do Hindus worship I was shown ruined temples on hills..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=tjndiykddsIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:57 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Nizam never destroyed any hindu temples.
Here is what Wikipedia says:

Mahabubnagar was most likely an historically Buddhist area, as many historic temples were destroyed by the Asaf Jahi rulers.

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

PS: Thank you, world, for Wikipedia. Thank you, Rashmun, for the Rashmun Method. Using those two together, I can prove almost anything.

There is no citation for this fact. Looks like an essential component of the PP Method is making use of the Tipu Phenomenon:

https://such.forumotion.com/t8508-tipu-sultan-friend-of-hindus-or-enemy-of-hindus

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:I did not realize that Charvaka's hatred extended towards all Nizams, not just last Nizam.

The only hatred here is yours towards Aurangzeb. Why else would you refuse to consider him at least as secular as the Nizam?

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64560

PS: The table has been updated to include the points about temple destruction and donations to temples.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:02 pm

panini press wrote:One last piece on the Nizams' destruction of Hindu temples.

From the book: Marathwada under the Nizams, 1724 to 1948, pages 186-187.

Several temples were either converted into mosques or destroyed completely, while some remains (sic) out of worship for years together. Mr. John Law observed in his book, "In vain I looked for modern Hindu temples, the ruin of old one I found... Mosques I saw everywhere, but when I asked where do Hindus worship I was shown ruined temples on hills..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=tjndiykddsIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Looks like this is another instance of the Tipu phenomenon:

https://such.forumotion.com/t8508-tipu-sultan-friend-of-hindus-or-enemy-of-hindus

Charvaka's rage and hatred towards Nizams, because Razakars manhandled his ancestors, continues unabated.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:53 pm

in another thread, PP gives the following table:

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

PP claims on the basis of this table that if Aurangzeb should be considered communal, then so should the Nizam. The question is: is this table based on truth, or is it based on falsehood?

Let us consider the very first row where PP says that Aurangzeb appointed a hindu commander-in-chief. This is not true. He inherited two military commanders from his father Shah Jahan, one of whom was a hindu. This hindu commander was dismissed by Aurangzeb after he did not perform satisfactorily against the marathas. The commander-in-chief of Aurangzeb was Aurangzeb himself. That is why Aurangzeb died in the deccan--far from his capital Delhi--because he was personally leading the fight in the deccan.

Let us consider the second row. Was Aurangzeb's policy framed by hindus? no it was not. There was only one person who framed Aurangzeb's policy and that was Aurangzeb himself. He is said to have had an instinctive distrust of everyone and was always scared of losing his throne in the way he himself had shunted out Shah Jahan.

Let us consider the third row. Was Aurangzeb extolled by Guru Gobind Singh? Charvaka emphasizes the fact that a a few verses of Zafarnama written by Gobind Singh extoll Aurangzeb. But the Zafarnama itself, according to wikipedia, says:

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.

it is true that Aurangzeb may have had more hindus in his administration than Nizam, but then one must remember that he also had a much larger empire than the Nizam.

Aurangzeb gave funding to some hindu temples; so did the Nizam.

Aurangzeb imposed jaziya on young and middle-aged hindu men; Nizam did not.

Nizam gave funding to educational institutions outside his kingdom; there is no record of Aurangzeb doing so.

Aurangzeb destroyed some hindu temples; the Nizam did not.

-----

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:38 pm

A point-by-point rebuttal has been provided here:

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64581

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64583

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64584

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64585

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64586

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:59 pm

A point by point rebuttal of PP's views on the Nizam have been given by a gentleman from Telangana:

https://such.forumotion.com/t5819p550-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64582

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:00 pm

Another rebuttal of PP's views on Nizam by another gentleman from Telangana:

https://such.forumotion.com/t5819p550-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64160

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:47 pm

Haha, this is not about "PP's views on Nizam." This is about who is more communal - Aurangzeb or Nizam. The answer so far is: Nizam.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:56 pm

notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:13 pm

Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:15 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Again, thanks to Rashmun for providing me such an easy and ready illustration of what I was talking about upthread: The same methods that are required to prove that the Nizam is secular also yield the result the Aurangzeb is secular. Not that there is anything wrong with that result -- Rashmun, just admit it instead of hiding it in the closet.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:15 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:17 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.

He explains jaziya as Mitt Romney-like tax reform: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64585

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:25 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.

in fact Jadunath Sarkar takes an even harsher view of Aurangzeb than many others. Charvaka caught lying again.

-----------------

The commonplace view of Aurangzeb, on the other hand, is that he repudiated Akbar’s policies of religious toleration, and by alienating Hindus he undermined the very empire whose tremendous expansion he masterminded. Nehru maintained that Aurangzeb had “put the clock back”, undoing what his predecessors had achieved by working against the “genius of the nation” and ignoring the common culture that had been forged among the different elements of the Indian population. “When Aurangzeb began to oppose this movement [of synthesis] and suppress it and to function more as a Moslem than an Indian ruler,” Nehru argued, “the Mughal Empire began to break up.” But where Nehru saw Aurangzeb as a “bigot and an austere puritan” whose policies were instrumental in creating unease and dissent, and Tara Chand deplored his “misdirected efforts” which caused “irreparable damage” to the “great edifice of the empire”, [3] many Indian historians have been inclined to take a much harsher view of Aurangzeb’s conduct.

In this they were to follow the lead supplied by Jadunath Sarkar, whose 1928 biography of Aurangzeb in four volumes bequeathed the view of Aurangzeb that still predominates in the popular imagination. Sarkar suggested that Aurangzeb intended nothing less than to establish an Islamic state in India, an objective that could not be fulfilled without “the conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent”; and to render this scenario more complete, he proposed that the jizya (poll-tax) on non-Muslims, which Aurangzeb had re-instituted in 1679, was aimed at forcibly converting Hindus to Islam, though he was unable to marshal evidence to substantiate this view. [4]

http://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/jadunath-sarkar/

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:29 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.
He explains jaziya as Mitt Romney-style tax reform: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64585

.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:30 pm

After getting exposed as a liar--for falsely claiming that Jadunath Sarkar did not consider Aurangzeb to be communal-- Charvaka has no option but to dot his own posts.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:After getting exposed as a liar--for falsely claiming that Jadunath Sarkar did not consider Aurangzeb to be communal-- Charvaka has no option but to dot his own posts.

Hey, since when is dotting your posts a sign that you got exposed as a liar? Was this in a recent memo that I missed?

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:32 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.
He explains jaziya as Mitt Romney-style tax reform: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64585

.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.

in fact Jadunath Sarkar takes an even harsher view of Aurangzeb than many others. Charvaka caught lying again.

-----------------

The commonplace view of Aurangzeb, on the other hand, is that he repudiated Akbar’s policies of religious toleration, and by alienating Hindus he undermined the very empire whose tremendous expansion he masterminded. Nehru maintained that Aurangzeb had “put the clock back”, undoing what his predecessors had achieved by working against the “genius of the nation” and ignoring the common culture that had been forged among the different elements of the Indian population. “When Aurangzeb began to oppose this movement [of synthesis] and suppress it and to function more as a Moslem than an Indian ruler,” Nehru argued, “the Mughal Empire began to break up.” But where Nehru saw Aurangzeb as a “bigot and an austere puritan” whose policies were instrumental in creating unease and dissent, and Tara Chand deplored his “misdirected efforts” which caused “irreparable damage” to the “great edifice of the empire”, [3] many Indian historians have been inclined to take a much harsher view of Aurangzeb’s conduct.

In this they were to follow the lead supplied by Jadunath Sarkar, whose 1928 biography of Aurangzeb in four volumes bequeathed the view of Aurangzeb that still predominates in the popular imagination. Sarkar suggested that Aurangzeb intended nothing less than to establish an Islamic state in India, an objective that could not be fulfilled without “the conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent”; and to render this scenario more complete, he proposed that the jizya (poll-tax) on non-Muslims, which Aurangzeb had re-instituted in 1679, was aimed at forcibly converting Hindus to Islam, though he was unable to marshal evidence to substantiate this view. [4]

http://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/jadunath-sarkar/

.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:...

.

Rashmun wrote:After getting exposed as a liar--for falsely claiming that Jadunath Sarkar did not consider Aurangzeb to be communal-- Charvaka has no option but to dot his own posts.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:40 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.
He explains jaziya as Mitt Romney-style tax reform: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64585

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:42 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.

in fact Jadunath Sarkar takes an even harsher view of Aurangzeb than many others. Charvaka caught lying again.

-----------------

The commonplace view of Aurangzeb, on the other hand, is that he repudiated Akbar’s policies of religious toleration, and by alienating Hindus he undermined the very empire whose tremendous expansion he masterminded. Nehru maintained that Aurangzeb had “put the clock back”, undoing what his predecessors had achieved by working against the “genius of the nation” and ignoring the common culture that had been forged among the different elements of the Indian population. “When Aurangzeb began to oppose this movement [of synthesis] and suppress it and to function more as a Moslem than an Indian ruler,” Nehru argued, “the Mughal Empire began to break up.” But where Nehru saw Aurangzeb as a “bigot and an austere puritan” whose policies were instrumental in creating unease and dissent, and Tara Chand deplored his “misdirected efforts” which caused “irreparable damage” to the “great edifice of the empire”, [3] many Indian historians have been inclined to take a much harsher view of Aurangzeb’s conduct.

In this they were to follow the lead supplied by Jadunath Sarkar, whose 1928 biography of Aurangzeb in four volumes bequeathed the view of Aurangzeb that still predominates in the popular imagination. Sarkar suggested that Aurangzeb intended nothing less than to establish an Islamic state in India, an objective that could not be fulfilled without “the conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent”; and to render this scenario more complete, he proposed that the jizya (poll-tax) on non-Muslims, which Aurangzeb had re-instituted in 1679, was aimed at forcibly converting Hindus to Islam, though he was unable to marshal evidence to substantiate this view. [4]

http://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/jadunath-sarkar/

.

notice that charvaka is still not responding to the fact that he lied about jadunath sarkar. all of us make mistakes. a gentleman is one who accepts his mistake and apologizes. is charvaka a gentleman? i think not. he will never apologize for his numerous mistakes.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:14 pm

Rashmun, is jaziya communal? Have you changed your mind about jaziya? Is that why you are not answering the question?

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:15 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:notice that both gentlemen from Telangana who refute PP's views on Nizam are hindus (or at least self-proclaimed hindus).

As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.

He explains jaziya as Mitt Romney-style tax reform: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64585

.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:16 pm

Rashmun, do you agree with Jadunath Sarkar that jaziya was not communal, but just Romney-style tax reform?

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:20 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.

in fact Jadunath Sarkar takes an even harsher view of Aurangzeb than many others. Charvaka caught lying again.

-----------------

The commonplace view of Aurangzeb, on the other hand, is that he repudiated Akbar’s policies of religious toleration, and by alienating Hindus he undermined the very empire whose tremendous expansion he masterminded. Nehru maintained that Aurangzeb had “put the clock back”, undoing what his predecessors had achieved by working against the “genius of the nation” and ignoring the common culture that had been forged among the different elements of the Indian population. “When Aurangzeb began to oppose this movement [of synthesis] and suppress it and to function more as a Moslem than an Indian ruler,” Nehru argued, “the Mughal Empire began to break up.” But where Nehru saw Aurangzeb as a “bigot and an austere puritan” whose policies were instrumental in creating unease and dissent, and Tara Chand deplored his “misdirected efforts” which caused “irreparable damage” to the “great edifice of the empire”, [3] many Indian historians have been inclined to take a much harsher view of Aurangzeb’s conduct.

In this they were to follow the lead supplied by Jadunath Sarkar, whose 1928 biography of Aurangzeb in four volumes bequeathed the view of Aurangzeb that still predominates in the popular imagination. Sarkar suggested that Aurangzeb intended nothing less than to establish an Islamic state in India, an objective that could not be fulfilled without “the conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent”; and to render this scenario more complete, he proposed that the jizya (poll-tax) on non-Muslims, which Aurangzeb had re-instituted in 1679, was aimed at forcibly converting Hindus to Islam, though he was unable to marshal evidence to substantiate this view. [4]

http://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/jadunath-sarkar/

.

notice that charvaka is still not responding to the fact that he lied about jadunath sarkar. all of us make mistakes. a gentleman is one who accepts his mistake and apologizes. is charvaka a gentleman? i think not. he will never apologize for his numerous mistakes.

.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:22 pm

panini press wrote:Rashmun, do you agree with Jadunath Sarkar that jaziya was not communal, but just Romney-style tax reform?

.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:23 pm

panini press wrote:Rashmun, is jaziya communal? Have you changed your mind about jaziya? Is that why you are not answering the question?

.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:As are Babu Nagendranath Banerjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar. These two gentlemen are real historians. One of them was even knighted. And they say that Aurangzeb is not communal.

Wrong again. Jadunath Sarkar says Aurangzeb was communal.

in fact Jadunath Sarkar takes an even harsher view of Aurangzeb than many others. Charvaka caught lying again.

-----------------

The commonplace view of Aurangzeb, on the other hand, is that he repudiated Akbar’s policies of religious toleration, and by alienating Hindus he undermined the very empire whose tremendous expansion he masterminded. Nehru maintained that Aurangzeb had “put the clock back”, undoing what his predecessors had achieved by working against the “genius of the nation” and ignoring the common culture that had been forged among the different elements of the Indian population. “When Aurangzeb began to oppose this movement [of synthesis] and suppress it and to function more as a Moslem than an Indian ruler,” Nehru argued, “the Mughal Empire began to break up.” But where Nehru saw Aurangzeb as a “bigot and an austere puritan” whose policies were instrumental in creating unease and dissent, and Tara Chand deplored his “misdirected efforts” which caused “irreparable damage” to the “great edifice of the empire”, [3] many Indian historians have been inclined to take a much harsher view of Aurangzeb’s conduct.

In this they were to follow the lead supplied by Jadunath Sarkar, whose 1928 biography of Aurangzeb in four volumes bequeathed the view of Aurangzeb that still predominates in the popular imagination. Sarkar suggested that Aurangzeb intended nothing less than to establish an Islamic state in India, an objective that could not be fulfilled without “the conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent”; and to render this scenario more complete, he proposed that the jizya (poll-tax) on non-Muslims, which Aurangzeb had re-instituted in 1679, was aimed at forcibly converting Hindus to Islam, though he was unable to marshal evidence to substantiate this view. [4]

http://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/jadunath-sarkar/

.

notice that charvaka is still not responding to the fact that he lied about jadunath sarkar. all of us make mistakes. a gentleman is one who accepts his mistake and apologizes. is charvaka a gentleman? i think not. he will never apologize for his numerous mistakes.

.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:18 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:Rashmun, do you agree with Jadunath Sarkar that jaziya was not communal, but just Romney-style tax reform?
.

.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:38 am

Gentlemen, let look at the Aurangzeb vs Nizam question objectively and beyond just the unidimensional lens of secularism. The latter's thread attracted 584 posts on SUCH running into 12 pages (as of Nov 1, 2012) while the former got only 138 posts and 3 pages.

So in simple terms, the Nizam's is longer. And dem numbers don't lie.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:48 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Gentlemen, let look at the Aurangzeb vs Nizam question objectively and beyond just the unidimensional lens of secularism. The latter's thread attracted 584 posts on SUCH running into 12 pages (as of Nov 1, 2012) while the former got only 138 posts and 3 pages.

So in simple terms, the Nizam's is longer. And dem numbers don't lie.

c'mon, one was started on Apr 20 and the other on Oct 20. A 6 months head start. I feel the rate of growth of Aurangzeb is much higher than Nizam's, at this point - the dots can make all the difference.

Too close to call at this stage.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:01 am

blabberwock wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Gentlemen, let look at the Aurangzeb vs Nizam question objectively and beyond just the unidimensional lens of secularism. The latter's thread attracted 584 posts on SUCH running into 12 pages (as of Nov 1, 2012) while the former got only 138 posts and 3 pages.

So in simple terms, the Nizam's is longer. And dem numbers don't lie.

c'mon, one was started on Apr 20 and the other on Oct 20. A 6 months head start. I feel the rate of growth of Aurangzeb is much higher than Nizam's, at this point - the dots can make all the difference.

Too close to call at this stage.

Oh BW. Trust you to bring the full weight of logic and reason into what was degenerating into a blind comparison of size. I agree with you. Considering that our education on Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books began only two days ago (US time), logging three pages in such a short span is indeed a tremendous achievment. The Nizam's thread, on the other hand, was a mere half page long over the first two days.

So, ladies and gentlemen, the earlier verdict stands overturned. Instead, we have a new winner. Aurangzeb's is longer on a like to like basis.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:07 am

The key to running a good political campaign is anticipating the questions that your candidate might face. As a good campaign manager, I anticipated this issue and addressed it already in the Aurangzeb thread.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64580

Aurangzeb vs Nizam Captur15

by Sponsored content