H-M synthesis: The meeting of two oceans

by Guest Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:27 am

In 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (the host of the video) uses an interesting term.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:37 pm

Rashmun wrote:In 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (the host of the video) uses an interesting term.

Here is what these two discussed about soon after the recoding :

Sumit Bajaj and Ruman Khan were arrested while they were on their way to Howrah station to leave the state. Bajaj and Khan, along with two of their friends, lured a 37-year-old Kolkata woman from a nightclub and allegedly raped her at gunpoint in a moving car. The incident occurred nearly two weeks ago.

H-M synthesis zindabad.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:35 am

Rashmun wrote:In 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (the host of the video) uses an interesting term.

Around 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (host of the BBC program) uses the term 'Indo-Islamic synthesis'. Around 46:30 in the video, he uses the term 'Hindu-Muslim synthesis'. This term was coined by me independently and used in sulekha posts before Wood's program was released, but i am quite pleased that he coined and used the same term which i have been using.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:41 am

See 51:24 onwards for the segment on Dara Shikoh.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:46 am

And in 55:56 in the video, he uses the words 'the quest for hindu muslim unity'.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:46 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (the host of the video) uses an interesting term.

Around 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (host of the BBC program) uses the term 'Indo-Islamic synthesis'. Around 46:30 in the video, he uses the term 'Hindu-Muslim synthesis'. This term was coined by me independently and used in sulekha posts before Wood's program was released, but i am quite pleased that he coined and used the same term which i have been using.

Yeah....rite... now watch him use the word "HINDIAN" in his next show.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:48 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (the host of the video) uses an interesting term.

Around 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (host of the BBC program) uses the term 'Indo-Islamic synthesis'. Around 46:30 in the video, he uses the term 'Hindu-Muslim synthesis'. This term was coined by me independently and used in sulekha posts before Wood's program was released, but i am quite pleased that he coined and used the same term which i have been using.

Yeah....rite... now watch him use the word "HINDIAN" in his next show.

There is no such word as Hindian. The word you are looking for is Hindustani.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:55 am

In 36:58 in the video, it is mentioned how an a quotation of Jesus Christ is inscribed on the entrance of the city of Fatehpur Sikri which was for many years the capital of Akbar the great.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:00 am

In 39:27 in the video, Wood describes the religious and philosophical discussions organized by Akbar.

The Jesuit missionaries, i should point out, write in their letters that comparative religion was a field in which Akbar had made a special study on.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:04 am

In 40:55 in the video, Wood describes the contents of a letter Akbar received from his contemporary Queen Elizabeth of England in which Akbar's humanity is praised.

One other very interesting letter that Akbar received, and which Wood does not talk about, is from the Pope of the time urging Akbar to quickly convert to Christianity. This was after Akbar had invited jesuit missionaries to his court because of his interest in comparative religion and his curiosity to know about Christianity.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:09 am

Rashmun wrote:See 51:24 onwards for the segment on Dara Shikoh.

The words 'The meeting of two oceans' were first used (in his writings) by Dara Shikoh.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:20 am

carvaka posted Re: Mughals no different than Brits. on 5 yrs ago (reply to Ponniyin Selvan)
...You'd be hard-pressed to find the sort of contempt Babur showed for his newly acquired territory in the writings of Akbar, Jahangir, or Dara Shikoh.BTW, Dara had the support of his father the emperor. He lost the power struggle and met a gruesome end. It's one of those ifs of history: how India would have looked if Auragzeb had lost that battle and Dara won.

Rashmun posted Re: Aurangzeb vs Dara Shukoh on 5 yrs ago
From 'The Great Moghuls' by Bamber Gascoigne pg 221:"Since Dara was in character diametrically opposed to Aurangzeb, it is tempting to speculate how different the subsequent history of the Moghul empire would have been if he, rather than Aurangzeb, had won. Hindus, to whom he was as well disposed as Aurganzeb was hostile, have often felt that India's coming century of disasters might have been avoided. But it seems more probable that under Dara the collapse of the Moghul empire, though different in kind, would have been just as rapid. The Great Moghuls had built their astonishing achievment on a combination of talents and sensibilities which had been present in Babur and had reached practical fruition in Akbar. The problems besetting an empire which had reached its natural limits of expansion required at least another Akbar to solve them, but his full range of characterestics were now neatly and precisely divided between Dara and Aurangzeb. Dara had inherited the interest in culture, the inquiring mind, the intrinsic tolerance and eclecticism; Aurangzeb had the decisiveness, the physical courage, the ability to lead and inspire. If Dara had reigned, the family achievment might well have crumbled more pleasantly. Under Aurangzeb's stern hands, it was to grind to its end with blood, toil, tears and sweat."

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:27 am

Rashmun wrote:carvaka posted Re: Mughals no different than Brits. on 5 yrs ago (reply to Ponniyin Selvan)
...You'd be hard-pressed to find the sort of contempt Babur showed for his newly acquired territory in the writings of Akbar, Jahangir, or Dara Shikoh.BTW, Dara had the support of his father the emperor. He lost the power struggle and met a gruesome end. It's one of those ifs of history: how India would have looked if Auragzeb had lost that battle and Dara won.

Rashmun posted Re: Aurangzeb vs Dara Shukoh on 5 yrs ago
From 'The Great Moghuls' by Bamber Gascoigne pg 221:"Since Dara was in character diametrically opposed to Aurangzeb, it is tempting to speculate how different the subsequent history of the Moghul empire would have been if he, rather than Aurangzeb, had won. Hindus, to whom he was as well disposed as Aurganzeb was hostile, have often felt that India's coming century of disasters might have been avoided. But it seems more probable that under Dara the collapse of the Moghul empire, though different in kind, would have been just as rapid. The Great Moghuls had built their astonishing achievment on a combination of talents and sensibilities which had been present in Babur and had reached practical fruition in Akbar. The problems besetting an empire which had reached its natural limits of expansion required at least another Akbar to solve them, but his full range of characterestics were now neatly and precisely divided between Dara and Aurangzeb. Dara had inherited the interest in culture, the inquiring mind, the intrinsic tolerance and eclecticism; Aurangzeb had the decisiveness, the physical courage, the ability to lead and inspire. If Dara had reigned, the family achievment might well have crumbled more pleasantly. Under Aurangzeb's stern hands, it was to grind to its end with blood, toil, tears and sweat."

-----

carvaka posted Re: Aurangzeb vs Dara Shukoh on 5 yrs ago
There's no better illustration of the blood, toil, tears and sweat than the needless wars he fought in the Deccan, resulting in completely frivolous destruction. Today you will find his tomb in an unremarkable little village called Khuldabad on the roadside near Aurangabad. Compared to Humayun's tomb in Delhi, Akbar's in Sikandra, Jehangir's in Lahore and Shah Jahan's in Agra, his tomb is an illustration of his failed efforts to keep his empire alive.

Rashmun posted Re: Aurangzeb vs Akbar on 5 yrs ago
Not just the needless wars in the Deccan, he had basically antagonized everyone around--the Marathas, the Jats, and most importantly the Rajputs included. Years of careful Mughal diplomacy (of having Rajputs as their allies for example) were put aside by his foolishness. As i see it, Aurangzeb was a brilliant tactician, a brave man; but a hopeless strategist, and of course a religious bigot. It is interesting to see how he compares to Akbar. From 'The Great Moghuls' by Bamber Gascoigne, pg 227:

"Aurangzeb's orthodoxy was undoubtedly a matter of genuine religious conviction, but it also brought considerable short term benefits; it had provided, for example, both the justification and the support which he needed for his campaign in the war of succession. In marching to annhilate the free-thinking Dara, who was all too reminiscent of Akbar, he had unleashed on his own behalf all the pent-up frustation and hostility which the orthodox ulema had felt since Akbar had pushed them so inconsiderately to one side.Bigotry of any sort, once allowed its head, is hard to restrain and it is impossible to say how much Aurangzeb was personally responsible for the many minor discriminations practiced against Hindus during his reign. His apologists argue that he himself disapproved of discrimination in secular matters (they rely mainly on saying attributed to him: 'What connection have earthly affairs with religion? and what right have admininstrative works to meddle with biogotry? For you is your religion and for me is mine'), and they argue that the outburst of desecration of temples by Muslims and of mosques by Hindus in his reign was an expression of deep existing hostilities within the community rather than the direct result of the emperor's own pronouncements.The hostilities were certainly there, just as they had been among Badaoni's orthodox circle in the reign of Akbar. But Akbar's policies had to a certain extent diffused them. Only under an emperor prepared to propound the strictest demands of Islam were they fully released again. Because of the precisely opposite attitudes of Akbar and Aurangzeb, great-grandfather and great-grandson each governing India for half a century, they have remained the two most controversial of the Great Moghuls. To most Hindus Akbar is one of the greatest of the Muslim emperors of India and Aurangzeb one of the worst; to many Muslims the opposite is the case.To an outsider there can be little doubt that Akbar's way was the right one. One needs perhaps to share Aurangzeb's own strong faith to approve of his policies, and even then it would be hard to admire his character. Akbar disrupted the Muslim community by recognizing that India is not an Islamic country; Aurangzeb disrupted India by behaving as though it were."

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:32 am

Kris posted Re:Were mughals hindu kings? on 10 mnths ago
With the introspective dara, there could have been more of a cultural synthesis (for want of a better word), but europe with its reach could not have been fought off. It is strange how some memorie are long. A Chinese pol recently intoned that they missed the sea race, when they turned inward, but they can't afford to miss the space race.

I think the ballgame was over toward the end of aurangazeb's reign ( or presumably at the end of dara's reign, if he had taken over). An ascendant, outward looking europe was very much a reality. Dara's rule, had it been long enough, could have set the tone for a more conciliatory relationship between the two religions. Of course, this is all monday morning quarterbacking.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:08 am

Sugata Bose posted Re:(clarification)Izlamik Firangi on 5 yrs ago
This is quite an interesting discussion. In fact I argued the same thing in a recent Lok Sabha lecture that assimilated a new perspective of Indian History through the eyes of great Indians, specifically Aurobindo for the Mughal period. I argued that the Mughals indigenized themselves rather quickly on setting foot in India and the British, unequivocally, were the first foreign rulers in India's history.Here is Aurobindo's positive assessment of the Mughals;a great and magnificent construction and an immense amount of political genius andtalent was employed in its creation and maintenance. It was as splendid, powerful andbeneficent and, it may be added, in spite of Aurangzeb’s fanatical zeal, infinitely moreliberal and tolerant in religion than any medieval or contemporary European kingdom orempire and India under its rule stood high in military and political strength, economicopulence and the brilliance of its art and culture.You can read my full paper on Aurobindo here: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FMIH%2FMIH4_01%2FS1479244306001089a.pdf&code=0a64780721cc13c30e528452fc6608c7Sugata BoseHarvard University

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:15 am

by charvaka Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...

Are you sure?

by Hellsangel Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:55 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?

Oh great glut Admin, please restart praising him before you hurt his feelings some more.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:07 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?
Oh great glut Admin, please restart praising him before you hurt his feelings some more.

one of the most pathetic sights of all is someone having zero knowledge of history wanting desperately to poke his nose into discussions involving history.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:08 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?

As sure as your claim that your wife is bong.

by Hellsangel Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:19 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?
Oh great glut Admin, please restart praising him before you hurt his feelings some more.

Whatever you say, Professor India Jones.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:26 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?
Oh great glut Admin, please restart praising him before you hurt his feelings some more.
Whatever you say, Professor India Jones.

why are you calling yourself Prod india jones? scratch

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:45 pm

Tracy Whitney wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?
Oh great glut Admin, please restart praising him before you hurt his feelings some more.
Whatever you say, Professor India Jones.

why are you calling yourself Prod india jones?

Hellsananda got confused. In his haste he managed to call himself Prof India Jones. lol!

by Hellsangel Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:46 pm

Tracy Whitney wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?
Oh great glut Admin, please restart praising him before you hurt his feelings some more.
Whatever you say, Professor India Jones.

why are you calling yourself Prod india jones?

A misquote, #1! I am only condemned to repeat history.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:50 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Tracy Whitney wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
charvaka wrote:Are you sure?
Oh great glut Admin, please restart praising him before you hurt his feelings some more.
Whatever you say, Professor India Jones.

why are you calling yourself Prod india jones?
A misquote, #1! I am only condemned to repeat history.

Prof India Jones, at least take the trouble to study a little history before participating in discussions involving history. rofl

by Hellsangel Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:09 pm

Dear Resident Historian,
Your posts are always a great source of entertainment when we ignore the psycho factor. No knowledge of history is required.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:15 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Dear Resident Historian,
Your posts are always a great source of entertainment when we ignore the psycho factor. No knowledge of history is required.

Prof India Jones, the Akka himself has praised my history posts for a period spanning several years. Is it your contention that the Akka is psychotic? Also, thanks for confirming to us that you have zero knowledge of history, but could you also confirm whether you are yourself psychotic-- as you seem to be.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:53 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Tracy Whitney wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Oh great glut Admin, please restart praising him before you hurt his feelings some more.
Whatever you say, Professor India Jones.

why are you calling yourself Prod india jones?
A misquote, #1! I am only condemned to repeat history.

Prof India Jones, at least take the trouble to study a little history before participating in discussions involving history.

Please let me explain this better. It requires a single-digit IQ and not fair to expect it from you so soon.... therefore,

Remember the time when you voted yourself out?

Bingo.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:05 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Tracy Whitney wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Whatever you say, Professor India Jones.

why are you calling yourself Prod india jones?
A misquote, #1! I am only condemned to repeat history.

Prof India Jones, at least take the trouble to study a little history before participating in discussions involving history.

Please let me explain this better. It requires a single-digit IQ and not fair to expect it from you so soon.... therefore,

Remember the time when you voted yourself out?

Bingo.

Uppili, you seem a little excited. This may help calm you down:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4139-overheard-on-chaikaapi-chat-merlot-and-uppili

by charvaka Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:53 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?

As sure as your claim that your wife is bong.

What does my wife's ethnicity have to do with whether you coined the term "Hindu-Muslim synthesis" independently?

Have you read The Discovery of India by Nehru?

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:12 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?

As sure as your claim that your wife is bong.
What does my wife's ethnicity have to do with whether you coined the term "Hindu-Muslim synthesis" independently?

Have you read The Discovery of India by Nehru?

A pointless question deserves a pointless answer. Wouldn't you agree? By the way, this is my entire post which you conveniently snipped out so that you could engage in your usual snide sniping:

Around 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (host of the BBC program) uses the term 'Indo-Islamic synthesis'. Around 46:30 in the video, he uses the term 'Hindu-Muslim synthesis'. This term was coined by me independently and used in sulekha posts before Wood's program was released, but i am quite pleased that he coined and used the same term which i have been using.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:28 pm

[quote="Rashmun"]

charvaka wrote:
Around 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (host of the BBC program) uses the term 'Indo-Islamic synthesis'. Around 46:30 in the video, he uses the term 'Hindu-Muslim synthesis'. This term was coined by me independently and used in sulekha posts before Wood's program was released, but i am quite pleased that he coined and used the same term which i have been using.

What a load of crap....

by charvaka Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This term was coined by me independently...
Are you sure?

As sure as your claim that your wife is bong.
What does my wife's ethnicity have to do with whether you coined the term "Hindu-Muslim synthesis" independently?

Have you read The Discovery of India by Nehru?

A pointless question deserves a pointless answer. Wouldn't you agree? By the way, this is my entire post which you conveniently snipped out so that you could engage in your usual snide sniping:

Around 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (host of the BBC program) uses the term 'Indo-Islamic synthesis'. Around 46:30 in the video, he uses the term 'Hindu-Muslim synthesis'. This term was coined by me independently and used in sulekha posts before Wood's program was released, but i am quite pleased that he coined and used the same term which i have been using.

Well, if you believe you "independently coined" the idea of a Hindu-Muslim synthesis, you should read The Discovery of India. Let me direct you to the section on "Synthesis and Growth of Mixed Culture," starting on page 243 in the Asia Publishing House edition. I trust you had read this before you started making posts about HiMu synthesis.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:41 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Are you sure?

As sure as your claim that your wife is bong.
What does my wife's ethnicity have to do with whether you coined the term "Hindu-Muslim synthesis" independently?

Have you read The Discovery of India by Nehru?

A pointless question deserves a pointless answer. Wouldn't you agree? By the way, this is my entire post which you conveniently snipped out so that you could engage in your usual snide sniping:

Around 57:28 in the video, Michael Wood (host of the BBC program) uses the term 'Indo-Islamic synthesis'. Around 46:30 in the video, he uses the term 'Hindu-Muslim synthesis'. This term was coined by me independently and used in sulekha posts before Wood's program was released, but i am quite pleased that he coined and used the same term which i have been using.
Well, if you believe you "independently coined" the idea of a Hindu-Muslim synthesis, you should read The Discovery of India. Let me direct you to the section on "Synthesis and Growth of Mixed Culture," starting on page 243 in the Asia Publishing House edition. I trust you had read this before you started making posts about HiMu synthesis.

i have read portions of 'Discovery of India' but it was certainly not on my mind when i coined the phrase 'Hindu-Muslim synthesis'. i may have read the section which u refer to, but i have no recollection of doing so right now.

it was not Nehru, but the several books i read on Akbar and his mental outlook which led to my coining the phrase in my sulekha posts, many of which were posted before i saw the BBC program of Michael Wood of the BBC in which he uses this phrase and other phrases like 'Indo-Islamic synthesis', 'the quest for hindu-muslim unity', etc.

by charvaka Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:i have read portions of 'Discovery of India' ... i may have read the section which u refer to, but i have no recollection of doing so right now.

by Guest Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:48 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i have read portions of 'Discovery of India' ... i may have read the section which u refer to, but i have no recollection of doing so right now.

i am glad u found that funny. if you recall i had in fact posted extracts from Discovery of India on sulekha, and you had posted your comments on those extracts. but it is also true that i have no recollection of the particular section to which you refer to, and it was not Nehru but Akbar which led to my coining the phrase 'Hindu-Muslim synthesis'.

by Guest Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:25 pm

Following is a very illuminating Firman of Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar Badshah (to give him for once his full name). It is a message sent to the Jesuits at Goa, requesting that a few missionaries be sent to his court to teach him the fundamentals of Christianity. It is extracted from pg 17 of the book 'Akbar and the Jesuits' by Father Pierre Du Jarric.

Reverend Fathers of the Order of Saint Paul: Be it known to you that, holding you in great esteem, I am sending you my ambassador Abdullah, and his interpreter Dominic Perez, to beg you to send me two Fathers, learned in the scriptures, who shall bring with them the principal books of the law, and of the Gospels; for I have a great desire to become acquainted with this law and its perfection. I earnestly enjoin you not to hinder their coming with these same ambassadors as soon as they shall reach you. Know, also, that the Fathers who shall come here will be received by me with all honour, and that it will be a peculiar pleasure to me to see them. If, after i have been instructed as I desire in their law and its perfection, they wish to return, they will be free to do so whenever it shall seem good to them, and I shall despatch them with great respect and honour. Let them not hesitate to come, for they will be under my care and protection.

by Guest Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:30 pm

After the Jesuit missionaries had arrived at Akbar's court, they were were permitted to construct a small chapel in the vicinity of where they were staying. When Akbar went to visit them, the missionaries inform us that the Emperor prostrated himself inside the small chapel (the oratory) and proceeded to pray first in the Christian fashion, then in the Muslim fashion, then in the Hindu fashion.From 'Akbar and the Jesuits' by Father Pierre Du Jarric pg 25-26:

The King entered the oratory unaccompanied by any of his guards or courtiers, and having removed his turban from his head, fell upon his knees and prayed, first of all in our fashion, then in his own, that is to say, after the manner of the Saracens of Persia, whose law he still outwardly observed, and lastly in the fashion of the Gentiles."God," he said, as he rose from his devotions, "ought to be adored with every kind of adoration."

by Guest Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:35 pm

From the book 'Akbar and the Jesuits' pg 8-9 and 12-12 by Father Pierre Du Jarric. (Note that Jesuit missionaries had arrived at Akbar's court at his request and hence the information they provide us with is first hand information about what they have themselves observed):

Akbar possessed an alert and discerning mind; he was a man of sound judgement, prudent in affairs, and, above all, kind, affable, and generous. With these qualities he combined the courage of those who undertake and carry out great enterprises. He could be friendly and genial in his intercourse with others, without losing the dignity befitting the person of a king. He seemed to appreciate virtue, and to be well disposed towards foriegners, particuarly Christians...

He was interested in, and curious to learn about many things, and possessed an intimate knowledge not only of military and political matters, but of many of the mechanical arts. He took delight in watching the casting of pieces of artillery , and in his own palace kept workmen constantly employed in the manufacture of guns and arms of various descriptions. uIn short, he was well informed on a great variety of matters, and could discourse on the laws of many sects, for this was a subject of which he had made a special study....

He enjoyed entering into debate with learned doctors. He always entertained at his court a dozen or so of such men, who propounded many questions in his presence. To their discussions, now on one subject, now on another, and particularly to the stories they narrated, he was a willing listener.Akbar was by temperament melancholy...so that to divert his mind, he had recourse to various forms of amusement...he amused himself with elephants and camels that had been trained to dance to the tune of certain musical instruments, and to perform other strange feats...He was also fond of watching fencing bouts...

But in the midst of these diversions--and this is a very remarkable thing--he continued to give his attention to affairs of the state, even to matters of grave importance...The king of whom we are speaking made it his particular care that in every case justice should be strictly observed. He was nevertheless, cautious in the infliction of punishment, especially the punishment of death. In no city where he resided could any person be put to death until the execution warrant had been submitted to him, some say, as many as three times. His punishments were not ordinarily cruel...

In brief the light of clemency and mildness shone from this prince, even upon those who offended against his own person. He twice pardoned an officer high in his service, who had been convicted of treason and conspiracy, graciously restoring him to favor and office. But when the same officer so far forgot himself as to repeat his offence a third time, he sentenced him to death...Akbar seldom lost his temper. If he did so, he fell into a violent passion; but his wrath was never of long duration. Before engaging in any important undertaking, he used to consult the members of his council; but he made up his own mind, adopting whatever course seemed to him the best....uIf anyone expressed an adverse opinion, he would listen patiently, answer his objections, and point out the reasons for his own decision. Sometimes, in view of the objections pointed out to him, he changed the plans he had made...This is what we have been able to ascertain about the Great Mughal and his state.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:37 pm

Rashmun wrote:....and proceeded to pray first in the Christian fashion, then in the Muslim fashion, then in the Hindu fashion.....

after this he clucked like a hen, quacked like a duck, mooed like a cow, and roared like a lion. his reasoning was that we should know the manner of all of god's creations.

by Guest Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:46 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:....and proceeded to pray first in the Christian fashion, then in the Muslim fashion, then in the Hindu fashion.....

after this he clucked like a hen, quacked like a duck, mooed like a cow, and roared like a lion. his reasoning was that we should know the manner of all of god's creations.

i will only say that victims of communal riots will not find your joke amusing. the idea of worshipping in the hindu, muslim, and christian fashion is to inculcate a sense of secularism, which in the Indian context means equal respect for all religions as Amartya Sen has explained. Not only are you insulting Akbar, but in my opinion you are also insulting people who believe in the concept of secularism where the meaning of secularism is equal respect for all religions. Do you dislike the concept of secularism prevalent in South Asia? Notice also that what Akbar did was very similar to what the Bengalis did in their program which Amartya Sen refers to.

“The meaning of secularism in South Asia is very different from the West's understanding,” said Indian economist Amartya Sen at an event to commemorate Bangladesh at 40 last week. “In the West, it is understood as a person who is not religious or without religion. So if a state is secular it means it has nothing to do with religion. But in South Asia, if you say a state is secular, it means the state treats all religions equally.”

He spoke of how, earlier in that day, he had attended an event at the Bangla Academy to receive an award. There they opened the ceremony by reading a verse from the Quran, a verse from the Bible, and finally a verse from the Bhagavad Gita. “They treated all three religions equally,” the Nobel Laureate explained. “If there was a westerner at this event, they would not have described this as a secular event.”

Using the example of Akbar the Great, Amartya Sen relayed how the Mughal Emperor's own religious views did not interfere with showing respect for or awarding rights to followers of other religions. Though the tradition of Muslim kings marrying Hindu princesses was not uncommon before Akbar's time, the fact he treated the families of his wives, be they Muslim or Hindu, with equal respect and favour was unique. His administration included numerous Hindu landlords, courtiers and military generals and he granted lands and money for Hindu temples and Christian churches across India.

“Mahatma Gandhi,” Sen also added, “was deeply religious at a personal level but was deeply secular in terms of the state. So South Asia's secularism is synthesis, not just distance.”

http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2012/01/01/perspective.htm

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:53 pm

i wish people would get to a point of equal indifference to all religions ASAP. that's a much better model for secularism.

by Guest Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:54 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i wish people would get to a point of equal indifference to all religions ASAP. that's a much better model for secularism.

i agree, but equal respect for all religions is certainly a lot better than partiality for a particular religion.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:02 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Dear Resident Historian,
Your posts are always a great source of entertainment when we ignore the psycho factor. No knowledge of history is required.

Prof India Jones, the Akka himself has praised my history posts for a period spanning several years. Is it your contention that the Akka is psychotic? Also, thanks for confirming to us that you have zero knowledge of history, but could you also confirm whether you are yourself psychotic-- as you seem to be.

LOL@that logic. mere mortals cant defend against such tactics.

by Guest Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:05 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Dear Resident Historian,
Your posts are always a great source of entertainment when we ignore the psycho factor. No knowledge of history is required.

Prof India Jones, the Akka himself has praised my history posts for a period spanning several years. Is it your contention that the Akka is psychotic? Also, thanks for confirming to us that you have zero knowledge of history, but could you also confirm whether you are yourself psychotic-- as you seem to be.

LOL@that logic. mere mortals cant defend against such tactics.

in this particular case, i thought it was a reasonable argument. if my posts contain material that is deemed psychotic by Hellsananda, and if we agree that the Akka has praised my posts on philosophy and history for a period spanning several years, then Hellsananda should consider the Akka to be psychotic.

by charvaka Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:38 am

Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Dear Resident Historian,
Your posts are always a great source of entertainment when we ignore the psycho factor. No knowledge of history is required.

Prof India Jones, the Akka himself has praised my history posts for a period spanning several years. Is it your contention that the Akka is psychotic? Also, thanks for confirming to us that you have zero knowledge of history, but could you also confirm whether you are yourself psychotic-- as you seem to be.

LOL@that logic. mere mortals cant defend against such tactics.

in this particular case, i thought it was a reasonable argument. if my posts contain material that is deemed psychotic by Hellsananda, and if we agree that the Akka has praised my posts on philosophy and history for a period spanning several years, then Hellsananda should consider the Akka to be psychotic.

Impeccable logic, I agree.

by Guest Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:50 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Dear Resident Historian,
Your posts are always a great source of entertainment when we ignore the psycho factor. No knowledge of history is required.

Prof India Jones, the Akka himself has praised my history posts for a period spanning several years. Is it your contention that the Akka is psychotic? Also, thanks for confirming to us that you have zero knowledge of history, but could you also confirm whether you are yourself psychotic-- as you seem to be.

LOL@that logic. mere mortals cant defend against such tactics.

in this particular case, i thought it was a reasonable argument. if my posts contain material that is deemed psychotic by Hellsananda, and if we agree that the Akka has praised my posts on philosophy and history for a period spanning several years, then Hellsananda should consider the Akka to be psychotic.
Impeccable logic, I agree.

Will a normal person praise writing which contains psychotic material? since you have praised my writings on history and philosophy for several years, and since Hellsananda thinks my writings contain psychotic content, is it not fair to say that Hellsananda should consider you to be a psychotic.

by charvaka Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:20 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Prof India Jones, the Akka himself has praised my history posts for a period spanning several years. Is it your contention that the Akka is psychotic? Also, thanks for confirming to us that you have zero knowledge of history, but could you also confirm whether you are yourself psychotic-- as you seem to be.

LOL@that logic. mere mortals cant defend against such tactics.

in this particular case, i thought it was a reasonable argument. if my posts contain material that is deemed psychotic by Hellsananda, and if we agree that the Akka has praised my posts on philosophy and history for a period spanning several years, then Hellsananda should consider the Akka to be psychotic.
Impeccable logic, I agree.

Will a normal person praise writing which contains psychotic material? since you have praised my writings on history and philosophy for several years, and since Hellsananda thinks my writings contain psychotic content, is it not fair to say that Hellsananda should consider you to be a psychotic.

Yes, I agree. I would like to formally praise your post.

Formal Praise of Rashmun's Post

To Whomsoever It May Concern

I, Charvaka, the undersigned (hereafter referred to as "PRAISER") have reached a decision to praise Rashmun (hereafter referred to as "PRAISEE") for his series of posts on this topic (hereafter referred to as "POSTS"). The PRAISER would like it to be known to the general public that he commends the impeccable logic in the POSTS and praises the PRAISEE for making them. It may further be known that this act of praise undertaken herein by the PRAISER may be interpreted by the PRAISEE as a full and unqualified admission of the PRAISEE's overall awesomeness made without any compulsions or reservations (caste-based or otherwise).

Signed,
Charvaka

// Certified original true carbon copy, dated Feb 20, 2012

To Whomsoever It May Concern

I, Charvaka, the undersigned (hereafter referred to as "PRAISER") have reached a decision to praise Rashmun (hereafter referred to as "PRAISEE") for his series of posts on this topic (hereafter referred to as "POSTS"). The PRAISER would like it to be known to the general public that he commends the impeccable logic in the POSTS and praises the PRAISEE for making them. It may further be known that this act of praise undertaken herein by the PRAISER may be interpreted by the PRAISEE as a full and unqualified admission of the PRAISEE's overall awesomeness made without any compulsions or reservations (caste-based or otherwise).

Signed,
Charvaka

// Certified original true carbon copy, dated Feb 20, 2012

To Whomsoever It May Concern

I, Charvaka, the undersigned (hereafter referred to as "PRAISER") have reached a decision to praise Rashmun (hereafter referred to as "PRAISEE") for his series of posts on this topic (hereafter referred to as "POSTS"). The PRAISER would like it to be known to the general public that he commends the impeccable logic in the POSTS and praises the PRAISEE for making them. It may further be known that this act of praise undertaken herein by the PRAISER may be interpreted by the PRAISEE as a full and unqualified admission of the PRAISEE's overall awesomeness made without any compulsions or reservations (caste-based or otherwise).

Signed,
Charvaka

// Certified original, dated Feb 20, 2012

by Guest Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:21 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:

LOL@that logic. mere mortals cant defend against such tactics.

in this particular case, i thought it was a reasonable argument. if my posts contain material that is deemed psychotic by Hellsananda, and if we agree that the Akka has praised my posts on philosophy and history for a period spanning several years, then Hellsananda should consider the Akka to be psychotic.
Impeccable logic, I agree.

Will a normal person praise writing which contains psychotic material? since you have praised my writings on history and philosophy for several years, and since Hellsananda thinks my writings contain psychotic content, is it not fair to say that Hellsananda should consider you to be a psychotic.
Yes, I agree. I would like to formally praise your post.

Formal Praise of Rashmun's Post

To Whomsoever It May Concern

I, Charvaka, the undersigned (hereafter referred to as "PRAISER") have reached a decision to praise Rashmun (hereafter referred to as "PRAISEE") for his series of posts on this topic (hereafter referred to as "POSTS"). The PRAISER would like it to be known to the general public that he commends the impeccable logic in the POSTS and praises the PRAISEE for making them. It may further be known that this act of praise undertaken herein by the PRAISER may be interpreted by the PRAISEE as a full and unqualified admission of the PRAISEE's overall awesomeness made without any compulsions or reservations (caste-based or otherwise).

Signed,
Charvaka

// Certified original true carbon copy, dated Feb 20, 2012

To Whomsoever It May Concern

I, Charvaka, the undersigned (hereafter referred to as "PRAISER") have reached a decision to praise Rashmun (hereafter referred to as
"PRAISEE") for his series of posts on this topic (hereafter referred to as "POSTS"). The PRAISER would like it to be known to the general public that he commends the impeccable logic in the POSTS and praises the PRAISEE for making them. It may further be known that this act of praise undertaken herein by the PRAISER may be interpreted by the PRAISEE as a full and unqualified admission of the PRAISEE's overall awesomeness made without any compulsions or reservations (caste-based or otherwise).

Signed,
Charvaka

// Certified original true carbon copy, dated Feb 20, 2012

To Whomsoever It May Concern

I, Charvaka, the undersigned (hereafter referred to as "PRAISER") have reached a decision to praise Rashmun (hereafter referred to as
"PRAISEE") for his series of posts on this topic (hereafter referred to as "POSTS"). The PRAISER would like it to be known to the general public that he commends the impeccable logic in the POSTS and praises the PRAISEE for making them. It may further be known that this act of praise undertaken herein by the PRAISER may be interpreted by the PRAISEE as a full and unqualified admission of the PRAISEE's overall awesomeness made without any compulsions or reservations (caste-based or otherwise).

Signed,
Charvaka

// Certified original, dated Feb 20, 2012

by Sponsored content