babur's gay side and his love for boys

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:28 am

http://rainbowrays.blogspot.com/2007/12/may-none-be-as-i-humbled-and-wretched.html

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:31 am

rashmun please don't have a cow. i just find it fascinating that a man, the leader of a band of indian history's most notorious marauders, capable of inflicting so much violence on so many could have had homosexual tendencies. not that there's anything wrong with it.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:43 am

You seem to have some interest in the Great Mughals, so let me tell you about Jahangir.

... he was unusually mild and he is described in European accounts as 'gentle, soft of disposition' or 'gentle and debonaire'. Roe was highly impressed by the courtesy which he always received from Jahangir; and the emperor's charm can be seen again and again in the ambassador's pages.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8507p50-was-rana-pratap-an-ass#64413

For the most part, he was unusually mild and he is described in European accounts as 'gentle, soft of disposition' or 'gentle and debonair'...And he is certainly the warmest, the most emotional of the Great Moghuls.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8507p50-was-rana-pratap-an-ass#64416

by indophile Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:43 am

Wasn't "Jehangir the Mild," responsible for revolting against his dad Akbar, blinding his own son Khusrav (the blind guy was later completely done away with by Shahjahan), getting the moghul governor of Bengal murdered in order to grab his pretty wife (Noorjehan) so he could duly nikkah her, ordering disfiguring of Hindu religious statues at Himakund and Gomukh on the day he ascended the throne, and killing the Sikh guru Teg Bahadur?

by Idéfix Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:46 am

If it counts, he felt bad about doing some of those things.

by indophile Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:06 am

Of course, he did those things when drunk, i.e., when he was not himself. Didn't he claim in his memoir that he needed some 6 seers of hooch a day, i.e., on calm days?

by FluteHolder Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:11 am

The whole history/story of this family is so interesting, if any one dares to make a movie/book will be given a fatwa?

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:52 am

panini press wrote:If it counts, he felt bad about doing some of those things.

5 years ago Charvaka was singing a different tune about the mughals. He was busy criticizing and attacking those who were criticizing my views on the mughals.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/jahangir-emperor-of-india.htm

(if you can't find his posts, its because he was posting using the handle "Carvaka").

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:09 pm

indophile wrote:Wasn't "Jehangir the Mild," responsible for revolting against his dad Akbar, blinding his own son Khusrav (the blind guy was later completely done away with by Shahjahan), getting the moghul governor of Bengal murdered in order to grab his pretty wife (Noorjehan) so he could duly nikkah her, ordering disfiguring of Hindu religious statues at Himakund and Gomukh on the day he ascended the throne, and killing the Sikh guru Teg Bahadur?

these are common misconceptions about jahangir stemming from a very superficial study of mughal history. i will be doing a point by point rebuttal of your post soon.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:13 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:If it counts, he felt bad about doing some of those things.

5 years ago Charvaka was singing a different tune about the mughals. He was busy criticizing and attacking those who were criticizing my views on the mughals.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/jahangir-emperor-of-india.htm

(if you can't find his posts, its because he was posting using the handle "Carvaka").

will read the entire thread tomorrow but this is really is an EYE OPENER for me *not being sarcastic*

MaxEntropy_Man posted Re: Jahangir: Emperor of India on 5 yrs ago
i don't know about all that. but one thing this and other related threads have firmly convinced me of more than ever is the north indian hindus' schizophrenic relationship with islam. on the one hand they adore urdu poetry, mirza ghalib's ghazals and the mughal architecture. on the other hand, they hate the muslims with a vehemence for the pillage, plunder, and rape of the past.: i am just happy that the people where i come from don't have to deal with all that baggage. no wonder i never saw all this ugliness growing up in TN. i hope it continues to stay that way.

to which carvaka responds:

carvaka posted Re: Jahangir: Emperor of India on 5 yrs ago
Max, this was a real eye-opener. I was prone to ignore your claims of a schizophrenic relationship; but Gyanputra demonstrates this amply!

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

edit. and max posts the concluding rejoinder:

MaxEntropy_Man posted Re: Jahangir: Emperor of India on 5 yrs ago
and he's not the only one. i've encountered many specimens like this in real life. i am not just shooting my mouth off. i know what i am talking about.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:17 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:If it counts, he felt bad about doing some of those things.

5 years ago Charvaka was singing a different tune about the mughals. He was busy criticizing and attacking those who were criticizing my views on the mughals.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/jahangir-emperor-of-india.htm

(if you can't find his posts, its because he was posting using the handle "Carvaka").

will read the entire thread tomorrow but this is really is an EYE OPENER for me *not being sarcastic*

MaxEntropy_Man posted Re: Jahangir: Emperor of India on 5 yrs ago
i don't know about all that. but one thing this and other related threads have firmly convinced me of more than ever is the north indian hindus' schizophrenic relationship with islam. on the one hand they adore urdu poetry, mirza ghalib's ghazals and the mughal architecture. on the other hand, they hate the muslims with a vehemence for the pillage, plunder, and rape of the past.: i am just happy that the people where i come from don't have to deal with all that baggage. no wonder i never saw all this ugliness growing up in TN. i hope it continues to stay that way.

to which carvaka responds:

carvaka posted Re: Jahangir: Emperor of India on 5 yrs ago
Max, this was a real eye-opener. I was prone to ignore your claims of a schizophrenic relationship; but Gyanputra demonstrates this amply!

Max is more honest about his beliefs. Charvaka prefers to hide and conceal his biases and prejudices.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:25 pm

Rashmun wrote:Max is more honest about his beliefs.

yes to an extent. if he is so honest why does he not own up that he was kattaboman? not truly honest in my books, sorry. like you confessed you were professor budweiser something.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:36 pm

this is an interesting phenomenon. i see a thread started solely with the intention to bully rashmun. as far as one can see, none of the hindu boyz who are circling rashmun has much interest in babur, jahangir, the moghals, or homosexuality, "not that there's anything wrong with it."

any opportunity to bash muslims brings indophile and fluteholder crawling out of the woodwork. they wouldn't do any of this by themselves; it's the belief that there is or will soon be a crowd of them nipping at rashmun that gives them courage.

this thread reminds me of narendra modi and gujarat of 2002.

good show, iitboyz!

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:36 pm

indophile wrote:Wasn't "Jehangir the Mild," responsible for revolting against his dad Akbar, blinding his own son Khusrav (the blind guy was later completely done away with by Shahjahan), getting the moghul governor of Bengal murdered in order to grab his pretty wife (Noorjehan) so he could duly nikkah her, ordering disfiguring of Hindu religious statues at Himakund and Gomukh on the day he ascended the throne, and killing the Sikh guru Teg Bahadur?

https://such.forumotion.com/t5819p550-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64730

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:44 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:any opportunity to bash muslims brings indophile and fluteholder crawling out of the woodwork.

and uppili, kinnera, et al...

edit. seven!

by Propagandhi711 Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:58 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:this is an interesting phenomenon. i see a thread started solely with the intention to bully rashmun. as far as one can see, none of the hindu boyz who are circling rashmun has much interest in babur, jahangir, the moghals, or homosexuality, "not that there's anything wrong with it."

any opportunity to bash muslims brings indophile and fluteholder crawling out of the woodwork. they wouldn't do any of this by themselves; it's the belief that there is or will soon be a crowd of them nipping at rashmun that gives them courage.

this thread reminds me of narendra modi and gujarat of 2002.

good show, iitboyz!

are you attacking your protege?? *shock*

by indophile Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:17 pm

Rashmun wrote:
indophile wrote:Wasn't "Jehangir the Mild," responsible for revolting against his dad Akbar, blinding his own son Khusrav (the blind guy was later completely done away with by Shahjahan), getting the moghul governor of Bengal murdered in order to grab his pretty wife (Noorjehan) so he could duly nikkah her, ordering disfiguring of Hindu religious statues at Himakund and Gomukh on the day he ascended the throne, and killing the Sikh guru Teg Bahadur?

[url=https://such.forumotion.com/t5819p550-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64730

https://such.forumotion.com/t5819p550-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64730[/quote[/url]]

You did not dispute any thing I said; all you did was try to justify those actions of Jehangir, or try to believe what you like to believe (Shajahan may not have killed Khusrav, Jehangir may not have blinded Khusrav, just got his eyes stiched or taped shut for a decade or more, Jehangir did not really arrange for Noorjehan's first husband to sleep with the fishes, etc.) , or as they say, put a positive "spin" as spinmasters do in political campaigns around here.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:20 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:this is an interesting phenomenon. i see a thread started solely with the intention to bully rashmun. as far as one can see, none of the hindu boyz who are circling rashmun has much interest in babur, jahangir, the moghals, or homosexuality, "not that there's anything wrong with it."

any opportunity to bash muslims brings indophile and fluteholder crawling out of the woodwork. they wouldn't do any of this by themselves; it's the belief that there is or will soon be a crowd of them nipping at rashmun that gives them courage.

this thread reminds me of narendra modi and gujarat of 2002.

good show, iitboyz!

are you attacking your protege?? *shock*

hey hunk with florid prose, you did not respond to my post here: https://such.forumotion.com/t8509-man-arrested-for-tweet-on-chidambaram-s-son#64466

what's it? to each his own? i am right? you are right? i got more penii?

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:23 pm

indophile wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
indophile wrote:Wasn't "Jehangir the Mild," responsible for revolting against his dad Akbar, blinding his own son Khusrav (the blind guy was later completely done away with by Shahjahan), getting the moghul governor of Bengal murdered in order to grab his pretty wife (Noorjehan) so he could duly nikkah her, ordering disfiguring of Hindu religious statues at Himakund and Gomukh on the day he ascended the throne, and killing the Sikh guru Teg Bahadur?

[url=https://such.forumotion.com/t5819p550-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64730
https://such.forumotion.com/t5819p550-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64730[/quote[/url]]

You did not dispute any thing I said; all you did was try to justify those actions of Jehangir, or try to believe what you like to believe (Shajahan may not have killed Khusrav, Jehangir may not have blinded Khusrav, just got his eyes stiched or taped shut for a decade or more, Jehangir did not really arrange for Noorjehan's first husband to sleep with the fishes, etc.) , or as they say, put a positive "spin" as spinmasters do in political campaigns around here.

the point to note is that jahangir got khusrau's eyes stitched up after khusrau's second rebellion. he had taken no action against khusrau after khusrau's first rebellion. also, the stitching of the eyes was done in such a way that after several years the stitches were opened and khusrau regained partial sight.
your claim that jahangir murdered noorjahan's husband is a myth i.e. it is false. this myth was concocted long after jahangir's death and is dismissed by contemporary historians as being untrue. there is no contemporary record or evidence that suggests that jahangir got noorjahan's husband killed.
the claim that shahjahan got khusrau killed is just an allegation. it may or may not be true. there is no definite proof one way or the other. shahjahan wrote to jahangir saying that khusrau died of an infection or disease.

so your claims are based on myths, falsehoods, exaggerations, and allegations.

by indophile Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:37 pm

Facts are facts. You can put a spin on anything. Like - sure, you cannot prove that Aurangzeb got Murad killed or he got Shuja killed either. Murad was only put up in the luxirious Gwalior fort and he was even supplied with concubines of his choice. His death after a year just happened; there is no incontrovertible proof that the idiot was poisoned. Shuja was only driven out by Mir Jumla. Some uncivilized guy in Arakan jungle may have killed and eaten him. It's unfair to blame Aurangzeb for his killing if there were simply no sightings of him. Akbar only seemed to favor his erudite grandson Khusrav over his wayward drunkard son Jehangir, and when Jehangir gained the throne he simply punished Khusrav. That's after all the custom in those days. You can go on and on ......

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:39 pm

ha ha! bloody amphibious (southindian) vegetarians https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/260715529017389058

kattaboman take notice!!!

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:48 pm

indophile wrote:Facts are facts. You can put a spin on anything. Like - sure, you cannot prove that Aurangzeb got Murad killed or he got Shuja killed either. Murad was only put up in the luxirious Gwalior fort and he was even supplied with concubines of his choice. His death after a year just happened; there is no incontrovertible proof that the idiot was poisoned. Shuja was only driven out by Mir Jumla. Some uncivilized guy in Arakan jungle may have killed and eaten him. It's unfair to blame Aurangzeb for his killing if there were simply no sightings of him. Akbar only seemed to favor his erudite grandson Khusrav over his wayward drunkard son Jehangir, and when Jehangir gained the throne he simply punished Khusrav. That's after all the custom in those days. You can go on and on ......

it is true that akbar was in two minds about whether jahangir would be able to fulfill the responsibilities of a king. nevertheless it is also true that on his deathbed he presented the sword of Humayun to Jahangir indicating that Jahangir was his chosen successor.

there was some confusion after akbar's death because two top nobles (Mirza Azia Koka and Raja Man Singh) wanted to anoint Khusrau as the next mughal king. but these two gentlemen found themselves in a minority since the overwhelming majority of the nobility wanted Jahangir as Emperor.

the fact that jahangir was not a drunkard is evident when one considers that from the twenty cups of double distilled spirits which he was drinking in his youth he moderated his alcohol intake to eight cups of a mixture of wine and spirits which he would consume thrice a week. he discloses this himself in his autobiography.

Jahangir's punishment for Khusrau seems to me to be unusually mild. Compare how Jahangir treated Khusrau with how king Ajatashatru treated his father Bimbisara, or how king Vidhudabha treated his father Pasenadi.

Kautilya (Chanakya) would have been disappointed with Jahangir's leniency towards Khusrau. After all, Jahangir inflicted some punishment on Khusrau only after his second rebellion (and had completely forgiven him for his first rebellion).

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:08 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:If it counts, he felt bad about doing some of those things.

5 years ago Charvaka was singing a different tune about the mughals. He was busy criticizing and attacking those who were criticizing my views on the mughals.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/jahangir-emperor-of-india.htm

(if you can't find his posts, its because he was posting using the handle "Carvaka").

When you can sing a different song within 5 posts in a single thread, why can't others sing different songs?

by Idéfix Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:54 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:this is an interesting phenomenon.

This is too. Nice to see you change the target of your ingratiation.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i see a thread started solely with the intention to bully rashmun.

When Rashmun spammed the forum for months about Nizams, Nawabs, Mughals, and his expertise (hahaha!) on southern Indian languages, what did you see?

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:this thread reminds me of narendra modi and gujarat of 2002.

It is really easy to remind you of Narendra Modi and Gujarat of 2002.

by Propagandhi711 Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:03 pm

Rashmun wrote:
indophile wrote:Facts are facts. You can put a spin on anything. Like - sure, you cannot prove that Aurangzeb got Murad killed or he got Shuja killed either. Murad was only put up in the luxirious Gwalior fort and he was even supplied with concubines of his choice. His death after a year just happened; there is no incontrovertible proof that the idiot was poisoned. Shuja was only driven out by Mir Jumla. Some uncivilized guy in Arakan jungle may have killed and eaten him. It's unfair to blame Aurangzeb for his killing if there were simply no sightings of him. Akbar only seemed to favor his erudite grandson Khusrav over his wayward drunkard son Jehangir, and when Jehangir gained the throne he simply punished Khusrav. That's after all the custom in those days. You can go on and on ......

it is true that akbar was in two minds about whether jahangir would be able to fulfill the responsibilities of a king. nevertheless it is also true that on his deathbed he presented the sword of Humayun to Jahangir indicating that Jahangir was his chosen successor.

there was some confusion after akbar's death because two top nobles (Mirza Azia Koka and Raja Man Singh) wanted to anoint Khusrau as the next mughal king. but these two gentlemen found themselves in a minority since the overwhelming majority of the nobility wanted Jahangir as Emperor.

the fact that jahangir was not a drunkard is evident when one considers that from the twenty cups of double distilled spirits which he was drinking in his youth he moderated his alcohol intake to eight cups of a mixture of wine and spirits which he would consume thrice a week. he discloses this himself in his autobiography.

Jahangir's punishment for Khusrau seems to me to be unusually mild. Compare how Jahangir treated Khusrau with how king Ajatashatru treated his father Bimbisara, or how king Vidhudabha treated his father Pasenadi.

Kautilya (Chanakya) would have been disappointed with Jahangir's leniency towards Khusrau. After all, Jahangir inflicted some punishment on Khusrau only after his second rebellion (and had completely forgiven him for his first rebellion).

he was also sorry for the things he did in his youthful vigor and drunken stupor. there were many hindu kings that were also drunkards but did not say sorry so he's much better than them. I am researching the names of the hindu kings, please stay tuned.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:28 pm

panini press wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:this is an interesting phenomenon.
This is too. Nice to see you change the target of your ingratiation.

panini press wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i see a thread started solely with the intention to bully rashmun.
When Rashmun spammed the forum for months about Nizams, Nawabs, Mughals, and his expertise (hahaha!) on southern Indian languages, what did you see?

--> what i did was not spamming. i shared articles on Dakhini, Nizam, etc. and also shared my views on these issues. that is not spamming. Spamming is what you did when you tried to derail a discussion on Kabir's poetry (in a thread started by me) by bringing up my initial explanation of a particular emoticon on that thread. As everyone knows by now my initial explanation of the emoticon made you laugh; while my final explanation of the same emoticon made you cry and become abusive towards me.

panini press wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:this thread reminds me of narendra modi and gujarat of 2002.
It is really easy to remind you of Narendra Modi and Gujarat of 2002.

the disguised communalist reveals his true colors.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:49 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:this is an interesting phenomenon.

panini press wrote:This is too. Nice to see you change the target of your ingratiation.

all the ingratiation in this thread is in the first two posts; the target is you. the poor fella wants to be your friend. he's willing to repudiate all that he believed in a little while ago to have your support, so that he has the freedom to post here without harassment by your minions.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i see a thread started solely with the intention to bully rashmun.

panini press wrote:When Rashmun spammed the forum for months about Nizams, Nawabs, Mughals, and his expertise (hahaha!) on southern Indian languages, what did you see?

grown men behaving like thirteen-year-olds, and TMB* inflicting pain on innocent bystanders with a never-ending stream of boring and supposedly satirical posts.

* The Main Bore

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:51 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:this is an interesting phenomenon.
panini press wrote:This is too. Nice to see you change the target of your ingratiation.
all the ingratiation in this thread is in the first two posts; the target is you. the poor fella wants to be your friend. he's willing to repudiate all that he believed in a little while ago to have your support, so that he has the freedom to post here without harassment by your minions.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i see a thread started solely with the intention to bully rashmun.
panini press wrote:When Rashmun spammed the forum for months about Nizams, Nawabs, Mughals, and his expertise (hahaha!) on southern Indian languages, what did you see?
grown men behaving like thirteen-year-olds, and TMB* inflicting pain on innocent bystanders with a never-ending stream of boring and supposedly satirical posts.

* The Main Bore

Brilliant post.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:00 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:all the ingratiation in this thread is in the first two posts; the target is you. the poor fella wants to be your friend. he's willing to repudiate all that he believed in a little while ago to have your support, so that he has the freedom to post here without harassment by your minions.

you are letting your imagination run wild. i have no personal friends on this board or at sulekha, and have never met anyone here or at sulekha in real life or even had the desire to converse with them on the phone. i don't give a rodent's behind what anyone here thinks of me. convergence of political views on a chat board is not sufficient reason to befriend someone. by the same token disagreement over political views is not sufficient to give up on friendships one already has in real life. however, i'd really like to know what belief of mine you think i have repudiated. it is fun to poke fun at rashmun, something i have engaged in from the time we were all one big happy family at sulekha, because he has such a distorted view of the importance of the moghal dynasty to indian history. it also irritates me that the NCERT textbooks devote so much more time and space to them at the expense of the rich cultural history of southern india. i see rashmun simply as a product of the NCERT education system. i don't dislike the moghal dynasty because they were muslim kings, but because they have been the beneficiaries of an undeservingly outsized and benevolent treatment at the hands of the history textbook writers. it is time we give them their more proper measure and see them for what they really were, warts and all. hence my desire that rushdie should write more books like the enchantress of florence.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:23 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:all the ingratiation in this thread is in the first two posts; the target is you. the poor fella wants to be your friend. he's willing to repudiate all that he believed in a little while ago to have your support, so that he has the freedom to post here without harassment by your minions.

you are letting your imagination run wild. i have no personal friends on this board or at sulekha, and have never met anyone here or at sulekha in real life or even had the desire to converse with them on the phone. i don't give a rodent's behind what anyone here thinks of me. convergence of political views on a chat board is not sufficient reason to befriend someone. by the same token disagreement over political views is not sufficient to give up on friendships one already has in real life. however, i'd really like to know what belief of mine you think i have repudiated. it is fun to poke fun at rashmun, something i have engaged in from the time we were all one big happy family at sulekha, because he has such a distorted view of the importance of the moghal dynasty to indian history. it also irritates me that the NCERT textbooks devote so much more time and space to them at the expense of the rich cultural history of southern india. i see rashmun simply as a product of the NCERT education system. i don't dislike the moghal dynasty because they were muslim kings, but because they have been the beneficiaries of an undeservingly outsized and benevolent treatment at the hands of the history textbook writers. it is time we give them their more proper measure and see them for what they really were, warts and all. hence my desire that rushdie should write more books like the enchantress of florence.

when you write of the mughals as "indian history's most notorious marauders", capable of inflicting so much violence on so many", etc. you come across as someone completely communal. Inadvertently you encourage and ferment the latent communal feelings in many hindus by your words. Secondly what you are saying is a falsehood because the cruelty the mughals exhibited was on not greater than the cruelties many hindu kings exhibited. for instance, King Ajatashatru of Magadha came to the throne after murdering his own father and subsequently carrying out the mass massacre of the Vajjian tribes (in which tribal men, women, and children were ruthlessly slaughtered). Similarly, King Vidudabha of Kosala managed to usurp power through a coup in which he expelled his own father Pasenadi (who was at the time the king of kosala) from the kingdom. Pasenadi later died of exposure. Vidudabha later carried out a a merciless slaughter of the the Sakya tribe (which was the Budha's tribe). Many other such examples may be given. Kautilya, in his Arthasastra, approves of brutality and ruthlessness on the part of the king and voices complete approval for a tribal collective to be destroyed like the way the Sakyas and Vajjians were destroyed. So there is even some theoretical justification for the cruelty.

your problem as i see it is a pig headed approach to history coupled with a very scratchy knowledge of the subject. it is for this reason that you keep falling from your high horse whenever you try to make fun of me.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:

when you write of the mughals as "indian history's most notorious marauders", capable of inflicting so much violence on so many", etc. you come across as someone completely communal.

was babur not a marauder? was babur not an inflicter of violence? stating the truth can never be communal. and every time i say something good or bad about a moghal king, i don't have to rectify the balance by saying something proportionally good or bad about a hindu king. that is a compulsion you have imposed upon yourself. there is no requirement that i have to impose it upon myself too. this thread is about a moghal king, the founder of the dynasty. if you want to talk about some other historical figure, start another thread.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:34 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

when you write of the mughals as "indian history's most notorious marauders", capable of inflicting so much violence on so many", etc. you come across as someone completely communal.

was babur not a marauder? was babur not an inflicter of violence? stating the truth can never be communal. and every time i say something good or bad about a moghal king, i don't have to rectify the balance by saying something proportionally good or bad about a hindu king. that is a compulsion you have imposed upon yourself. there is no requirement that i have to impose it upon myself too. this thread is about a moghal king, the founder of the dynasty. if you want to talk about some other historical figure, start another thread.

with respect to your words: babur is 'indian history's most notorious marauder', 'capable of inflicting violence on so many' ,etc.

what about the fact that that Ajatashatru and Vidudabha, after killing their fathers, carried out a mass slaughter of the Vajjian and Sakya tribes respectively in which men, women, and children were all slaughtered. Should we close our eyes to what Ajatashatru and Vidudabha did because they were hindus?

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

when you write of the mughals as "indian history's most notorious marauders", capable of inflicting so much violence on so many", etc. you come across as someone completely communal.

was babur not a marauder? was babur not an inflicter of violence? stating the truth can never be communal. and every time i say something good or bad about a moghal king, i don't have to rectify the balance by saying something proportionally good or bad about a hindu king. that is a compulsion you have imposed upon yourself. there is no requirement that i have to impose it upon myself too. this thread is about a moghal king, the founder of the dynasty. if you want to talk about some other historical figure, start another thread.

how is babur 'indian history's most notorious marauder', 'capable of inflicting violence on so many' ,etc. ? what about the fact that that Ajatashatru and Vidudabha, after killing their fathers, carried out a mass slaughter of the Vajjian and Sakya tribes respectively in which men, women, and children were all slaughtered. Should we close our eyes to what Ajatashatru and Vidudabha did because they were hindus?

War and bloodshed was a part of life in medieval India, and indeed in the medieval world. After winning against Ibrahim Lodhi and becoming the King, Babur did not carry out a genocide of his people.
He was, in fact, not a marauder as you falsely claim he was. He would have been a marauder if he would have come to India, looted, and then returned to central asia. but he did not do this.
he came and settled down in India. Babur may have been a foreigner but his descendants were Indians. As Indian as your ancestors and mine.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:56 pm

"Babur may have been a foreigner but his descendants were Indians. As Indian as your ancestors and mine." - Rashmun to PPji

Yes, Rahul and Priyanka are also as Indian as Aurangazeb.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:52 pm

Rashmun wrote:
what about the fact that that Ajatashatru and Vidudabha, after killing their fathers, carried out a mass slaughter of the Vajjian and Sakya tribes respectively in which men, women, and children were all slaughtered. Should we close our eyes to what Ajatashatru and Vidudabha did because they were hindus?

no casual reader of indian history would have even heard of ajatashatru and vidudabha. i don't know who they are. they are certainly not central figures in any NCERT textbook. it is in this sense that i called babur the most notorious marauder. i have no desire to get into a tedious semantic argument with you about this. suffice it is to say that this thread is about my surprise at babur's homosexuality. let's not veer from it.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:52 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:all the ingratiation in this thread is in the first two posts; the target is you. the poor fella wants to be your friend. he's willing to repudiate all that he believed in a little while ago to have your support, so that he has the freedom to post here without harassment by your minions.

you are letting your imagination run wild. i have no personal friends on this board or at sulekha, and have never met anyone here or at sulekha in real life or even had the desire to converse with them on the phone..... . it is time we give them their more proper measure and see them for what they really were, warts and all. hence my desire that rushdie should write more books like the enchantress of florence.

Exactemente...

Also, rashmunullah reminds me of a kid I know who will insist that he be praised everytime some other kid was praised.

rashmunullah is in "historical" love with all Moguls Except he just likes Zeb. If anyone remembers, he caught this disease "mogulitis" with his initial threads on Babur - long, long back.

by Guest Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:08 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
what about the fact that that Ajatashatru and Vidudabha, after killing their fathers, carried out a mass slaughter of the Vajjian and Sakya tribes respectively in which men, women, and children were all slaughtered. Should we close our eyes to what Ajatashatru and Vidudabha did because they were hindus?

no casual reader of indian history would have even heard of ajatashatru and vidudabha. i don't know who they are. they are certainly not central figures in any NCERT textbook. it is in this sense that i called babur the most notorious marauder. i have no desire to get into a tedious semantic argument with you about this. suffice it is to say that this thread is about my surprise at babur's homosexuality. let's not veer from it.

with respect to your claim that Babur was a marauder, i refer you to my older post:

War and bloodshed was a part of life in medieval India, and indeed in the medieval world. After winning against Ibrahim Lodhi and becoming the King, Babur did not carry out a genocide of his people.
He was, in fact, not a marauder as you falsely claim he was. He would have been a marauder if he would have come to India, looted, and then returned to central asia. but he did not do this.
he came and settled down in India. Babur may have been a foreigner but his descendants were Indians. As Indian as your ancestors and mine.

The word 'marauder' might suit people like Mahmud of Ghazni and Rajaraja Chola better:

But the greatest of Indian monarchs who dreamt of ruling over overseas territories were undoubtedly the splendid Chola father-and-son, Rajaraja and Rajendra. Thanks to their imperial energy and unprecedented vision, the Cholas dominated the amorphous maritime empire of the Sailendras for nearly a century. As Balram Srivastava observes in Rajendra Chola: 'The Chola navigators supported the Indian colonies in the far east and established a firm rule of the Cholas in Sri Vijaya. Their success nearer home, in Sri Lanka, was also splendid. They crossed the sea between India and Sri Lanka so often that it became a lake to them.' "
---
"The Cholas, originally a small clan ruling over parts of the Tamil country, could assert themselves only after the decline of the illustrious Pallavas of Kanchi. The first Chola empire was established by Karikala who subdued the Cheras and the Pandyas, but his successors were confined to a small territory between the Pallava and the Pandya kingdoms. But with the decline of the two in the 9th century, the Cholas asserted themselves, pushing back the Rashtrakutas, the Chalukyas, the Cheras and the Gangas."
---
"The real imperial era of the Cholas began with Vijayalaya around 850 A.D. Taking Thanjavur from the Muttarya chiefs, Vijayalaya assumed the title Tanjaikonda Prakesari or the conqueror of Thanjavur. And then, through a series of battles and marriage alliances with their neighbours, the Cholas consolidated in the next few centuries. After a short eclipse in the 10th century, came Rajaraja who literally turned the tide in favour of the Cholas."
---
"Ruthless conqueror. Having first fought and then agreed to a truce with Vengi of the eastern Chalukyas, Rajaraja, according to his own inscription, conquered Lakshadweep and the Maldives. Buddhist literature from Sri Lanka says that the Indian king took advantage of an internal strife in Sri Lanka and invaded the island. The ruthless Chola conquest was apparently no different from the conduct of Mahmud of Ghazni at Somnath. The Kulavamsa says that the capital Anuradhapura, which sported many Buddhist viharas, was 'utterly destroyed in every way by the Chola army.' Not only were the viharas decimated, but the holy stupas in them were torn apart in search of treasure. As George W. Spencer observes in The Politics of Expansion: The Chola Conquest of Sri Lanka and Sri Vijaya, 'Even if we allow for the exaggeration of the chroniclers, it is clear that the Cholas devastated the city.' "
---
"It was no religious conquest. The viharas were looted because they contained treasures, as did the temples of India during Mahmud's conquest. Rajaraja's adventures may be dismissed as having happened within the extended coastal waters of India. But his son Rajendra was a true conqueror of overseas territories. Says Dr. K.V. Hariharan in The Chola Maritime Activities in Early Historical Setting: 'Of the most notable was Rajendra Chola's naval expedition against Kadaram. In this expedition, he defeated a king named Sangama Vijayottungavarman, the king of Kataha, belonging to the Sailendras of Java. The territories wrested by the Cholas from this king consisted of the extensive kingdom of Sri Vijaya, which at one time included Sumatra and Java, with its capital at Palembang.' "
---
"Apparently it was after the Sailendra dynasty wrested the Sri Vijaya empire that relations with the Cholas soured. Is it probable that the imperial Chola was apprehensive of the conquering energy of the Sailendras ruling over the Sri Vijaya empire? There are scholars who believe that by the time Rajendra came to [the] throne, the Sailendra power was ebbing. Anyway, at its height, it encompassed all the islands from Nicobar to Sumatra and included the entire Malayan peninsula. Its capital, the city of Sri Vijaya, was believed to be to the southeast corner of Sumatra."
---
"Not only did Rajendra's army sack Kadaram and the Sri Vijaya capital, but it also took the Sri Vijaya king Sangrama Vijayottungavarman captive. The kingdom was restored to him only after he acknowledged Chola suzerainty. Tamil inscriptions recovered from the region show that there was Chola military presence till at least 1088 in the Malay archipelago."
---
"Information on these raiding conquests are sketchy, but scholars like R.C. Majumdar think that the emperor despatched more than one expedition to humble the Sri Vijayas. The list of 13 towns in the archipelago sacked by the Cholas has come from Rajendra's own inscriptions. Scholars have identified all but two of them. Six are located on the Malay peninsula, four on Sumatra, the other being the Nicobar islands. Scholars like Paul Wheatley have been sceptical of Rajendra's claims about the number of towns his army sacked, but most agree that a raid did take place."
---
"Says George Spencer: 'The campaign is plausible because it fits the Chola pattern of compulsive expansion in this period, fits the aim of Rajendra to exceed his father's accomplishments and fits the persistent Chola need to locate fresh sources of plunder or tribute.' There is evidence to show that the king of Kambujadesa (modern Cambodia) sent a chariot to the Chola, probably to appease him so that his strategic attention does [sic] not extend further than the Malay peninsula."
---
"Lure of the Ganga. The other monumental military accomplishment of Rajendra, by far the greatest conquering monarch of south Indian history, was his expedition to the banks of the Ganga. Even today, scholars have not stopped disputing about the real intentions of this ambitious raid. Folklore has it that Rajendra wanted to fetch waters of the Ganga and other rivers of India to consecrate an irrigation tank that he built in his country. Anyway, it is true that the emperor called himself Gangaikondachola after the expedition, meaning the Chola who conquered the Ganga. His new capital was christened Gangaikondacholapuram."
---
"The Chola did not personally lead his army to the Ganga. Going by evidence from two inscriptions, he marched only up to the Godavari from where his generals carried the expedition forward. But what was the purpose of the expedition? All scholars who have tried to trace the route have admitted that the listing of places, as described in the inscriptions, would have had the army crossing the same territory more than once."
---
"This leads one to think that the fetching of water was an afterthought. The real intention of the expedition could have been to collect loot and tribute, and establish Chola paramountcy. The emperor could have thought of crowning his glory with a religious ceremony, and associating the Ganga with his own name and that of his newly-built capital. Accounts of Rajendra's exploits make one wonder: would India's history have been different if the father and son were ruling a kingdom farther north? All this was happening in the eastern half of the country when Mahmud's horses were trotting across the western half."
---

http://sikhtimes.com/news_062903a.html

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri May 27, 2016 9:20 pm

i came across this today, here: http://www.amitavghosh.com/essays/love_war.html

Although scarcely a model parent, Babar's father, Umar-Shaykh Mirza, was the very soul of docility compared to the rest of his family. More or less the first thought that occurs to Babar on hearing of his father's death is to flee to the mountains so that "at least I would not fall captive and ... go to one of my uncles." (50). Of one of his uncles Babar writes: "He never missed the five daily prayers, even when he was drinking... He was a good drinker. Once he started drinking, he drank continually for twenty or thirty days, but when he stopped he did not drink again for the same amount of time." (53) [ii]Of another: "He was addicted to vice and debauchery. He drank wine continually. He kept a lot of catamites, and in his realm wherever there was a comely, beardless youth, he did everything he could to turn him into a catamite." (60)[iii]

by Propagandhi711 Sat May 28, 2016 9:13 am

ofcourse all mughals were gay pedarests. douchemun's ancestors were at the receiving end of this.

by Guest Sat May 28, 2016 9:19 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:ofcourse all mughals were gay pedarests. douchemun's ancestors were at the receiving end of this.

this reminds me of my adolescent days in boarding school. this is how some children in the boarding school would speak. Props is clearly a child trapped in a man's body.

by swapna Sat May 28, 2016 9:56 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:ofcourse all mughals were gay pedarests. douchemun's ancestors were at the receiving end of this.

there is no such word as "ofcourse";

"pedarast," not "pedarest."

"pedarast," not "gay pedarast."

by Propagandhi711 Sat May 28, 2016 10:38 am

swapna wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:ofcourse all mughals were gay pedarests. douchemun's ancestors were at the receiving end of this.
there is no such word as "ofcourse";

"pedarast," not "pedarest."

"pedarast," not "gay pedarast."

babur's gay side and his love for boys 49515912

by Guest Sat May 28, 2016 10:58 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:
swapna wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:ofcourse all mughals were gay pedarests. douchemun's ancestors were at the receiving end of this.
there is no such word as "ofcourse";

"pedarast," not "pedarest."

"pedarast," not "gay pedarast."

babur's gay side and his love for boys 766b7983c3977856c615d612deacd2fc

by Propagandhi711 Sat May 28, 2016 1:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
swapna wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:ofcourse all mughals were gay pedarests. douchemun's ancestors were at the receiving end of this.
there is no such word as "ofcourse";

"pedarast," not "pedarest."

"pedarast," not "gay pedarast."

gay butler scrambles to find master's chappals to carry on his head

by Guest Sat May 28, 2016 1:29 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
swapna wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:ofcourse all mughals were gay pedarests. douchemun's ancestors were at the receiving end of this.
there is no such word as "ofcourse";

"pedarast," not "pedarest."

"pedarast," not "gay pedarast."

gay butler scrambles to find master's chappals to carry on his head

this reminds me of my adolescent days in boarding school. this is how some children in the boarding school would speak. Props is clearly a child trapped in a man's body.

by Sponsored content