Re: Malik Kafur in TN -- How Tamil Nadu lost its Sovereignty (Educating Rasmun about TN lesson)

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:09 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i am only saying that the Nawabs had administrative control over the Carnatic region (which included Madras city) initially.
They most certainly did not have administrative control over Madras. Madras was administered by a municipal corporation that was founded by the British in the 17th century. It had a mayor, a city council and a British judicial system, and the East India Company was responsible for the military security of the city. Read the book I have cited -- it is the history of the city commissioned by the city's official tercentenary celebration committee.

Unfortunately i am unable to read as many books as i would like to read. I have made it clear that my arguments are based on the material found in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which has been endorsed by N.Ram the editor in chief of the Hindu newspaper.

Hahaha, Rashmun Method is alive and well. In order to understand who controlled Madras, you won't read the history of Madras, but only the website of a dynasty that doesn't even claim that it controlled the city except by your own unsupported extrapolation!

You can just read the table of contents of the book, and all will be clear whether your nawabs administered the city at all.

Looks like the insufferably idiotic PP Method is here to stay. Whatever or whoever agrees with the PP Hypothesis should be accepted. Whoever disagrees with the PP Hypothesis is to be attacked. Is this the behavior of a scholar or a fraud?

Besides the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot i had also given a reference to a TOI article which gave the views of an expert on the history of the Nawabs of Arcot:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-26/chennai/28296789_1_arcot-madras-week-celebrations-siege

This is an extract from the article:

Anwar said that that Madras always had a history with the nawabs because most of their families were sent here to live. Later, in the 1750s, Mohammed Ali Wallajah shifted the capital from Arcot to Madras and he shifted residence here.

----

The official website of the Nawabs of Arcot says that Nawab Wallajah ruled from 1749-1795. It also says that Administrative control of the Carnatic was only handed over to the British on 1801 AD after the death of Nawab Wallajah's son.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

If we agree with the TOI article (which gives the views of an expert on the history of the Arcot Nawabs) that the capital of the Arcot Nawabs was shifted to Madras by Nawab Wallajah (who reigned from 1749-1795), and if we also agree with the official site of the Arcot Nawabs that administrative control of the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in the year 1801, then the PP Hypothesis stands demolished.

Rashmun Method!

You are welcome to continue to pretend that you don't know that you were wrong about Madras. Makes it all the more entertaining. Very Happy

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:14 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:They most certainly did not have administrative control over Madras. Madras was administered by a municipal corporation that was founded by the British in the 17th century. It had a mayor, a city council and a British judicial system, and the East India Company was responsible for the military security of the city. Read the book I have cited -- it is the history of the city commissioned by the city's official tercentenary celebration committee.

Unfortunately i am unable to read as many books as i would like to read. I have made it clear that my arguments are based on the material found in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which has been endorsed by N.Ram the editor in chief of the Hindu newspaper.

Hahaha, Rashmun Method is alive and well. In order to understand who controlled Madras, you won't read the history of Madras, but only the website of a dynasty that doesn't even claim that it controlled the city except by your own unsupported extrapolation!

You can just read the table of contents of the book, and all will be clear whether your nawabs administered the city at all.

Looks like the insufferably idiotic PP Method is here to stay. Whatever or whoever agrees with the PP Hypothesis should be accepted. Whoever disagrees with the PP Hypothesis is to be attacked. Is this the behavior of a scholar or a fraud?

Besides the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot i had also given a reference to a TOI article which gave the views of an expert on the history of the Nawabs of Arcot:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-26/chennai/28296789_1_arcot-madras-week-celebrations-siege

This is an extract from the article:

Anwar said that that Madras always had a history with the nawabs because most of their families were sent here to live. Later, in the 1750s, Mohammed Ali Wallajah shifted the capital from Arcot to Madras and he shifted residence here.

----

The official website of the Nawabs of Arcot says that Nawab Wallajah ruled from 1749-1795. It also says that Administrative control of the Carnatic was only handed over to the British on 1801 AD after the death of Nawab Wallajah's son.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

If we agree with the TOI article (which gives the views of an expert on the history of the Arcot Nawabs) that the capital of the Arcot Nawabs was shifted to Madras by Nawab Wallajah (who reigned from 1749-1795), and if we also agree with the official site of the Arcot Nawabs that administrative control of the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in the year 1801, then the PP Hypothesis stands demolished.

Rashmun Method!

You are welcome to continue to pretend that you don't know that you were wrong about Madras. Makes it all the more entertaining.

PP Method! Turn a blind eye to the material in the TOI article (where an expert on the history of the Nawab of Arcots gives his views); and also on the official website of the Nawabs which has been endorsed by the editor in chief of the Hindu newspaper. And all because their view differs from yours.

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:30 am

Rashmun wrote:Turn a blind eye to the material in the TOI article (where an expert on the history of the Nawab of Arcots gives his views); and also on the official website of the Nawabs which has been endorsed by the editor in chief of the Hindu newspaper. And all because their view differs from yours.

Sorry, I didn't turn a blind eye to it. I read it and pointed out to you nicely that even the website of your "nawab" doesn't claim that they controlled Madras. You are the one who turned a blind eye to what was said by the Corporation of Chennai, the official history of the city and every other source that confirms that Madras was ruled by the British, not by your nawab. But do carry on and keep making a fool of yourself! I love it when people dig themselves into deeper holes by refusing to admit that they were wrong about some little thing. This is great.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:36 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Turn a blind eye to the material in the TOI article (where an expert on the history of the Nawab of Arcots gives his views); and also on the official website of the Nawabs which has been endorsed by the editor in chief of the Hindu newspaper. And all because their view differs from yours.
Sorry, I didn't turn a blind eye to it. I read it and pointed out to you nicely that even the website of your "nawab" doesn't claim that they controlled Madras. You are the one who turned a blind eye to what was said by the Corporation of Chennai, the official history of the city and every other source that confirms that Madras was ruled by the British, not by your nawab. But do carry on and keep making a fool of yourself! I love it when people dig themselves into deeper holes by refusing to admit that they were wrong about some little thing. This is great.

The official site of the Nawab says that Administrative control of the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in the year 1801. The TOI article, quoting an expert on the history of the Nawabs, says Nawab Wallajah had shifted the capital of the Carnatic from Arcot to Madras. But because these facts are contrary to the PP Hypothesis you have no alternative but to turn a blind eye to them in keeping with the now well known PP Method.

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:48 am

Rashmun wrote:The official site of the Nawab says that Administrative control of the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in the year 1801.

And you assumed that their definition of the Carnatic included Madras. Well, in that case, your "nawabs" must have also have controlled Mysore and southern AP as well! Your confusion arises from an unwarranted and unsupported extrapolation.

Rashmun wrote:The TOI article, quoting an expert on the history of the Nawabs, says Nawab Wallajah had shifted the capital of the Carnatic from Arcot to Madras.

If you are going to anchor your argument on a report in the toilet paper of India, oh well.

Rashmun wrote:But because these facts are contrary to the PP Hypothesis you have no alternative but to turn a blind eye to them in keeping with the now well known PP Method.

Rashmun, you explicitly made the claim that your "nawab" firmly controlled Madras in the 1750s. That is just not true. When he took refuge in Madras, he was sent away as "troublesome" and because his party was "too numerous to feed." That's the amount of "control" he exercised in Madras!

There is no ambiguity at all among historians that Madras was indeed ruled by the British from its founding as a city right until 1947, except for three years of French rule in between. Your "nawab" never ruled, administered or controlled that city.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:05 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The official site of the Nawab says that Administrative control of the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in the year 1801.
And you assumed that their definition of the Carnatic included Madras. Well, in that case, your "nawabs" must have also have controlled Mysore and southern AP as well! Your confusion arises from an unwarranted and unsupported extrapolation.

--> I did assume that their definition of the Carnatic included Madras because that is precisely what the official site says:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/intro.html

--> I find your repeated usage of the term 'your nawabs' to be xenophobic and insulting to south indian muslims who view him as an iconic figure. This is what the Hindu says:

The Prince of Arcot is considered the "First nobleman in the Muslim community of South India".

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/02/01/stories/2004020100120200.htm

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:03 pm

Rashmun wrote:
--> I did assume that their definition of the Carnatic included Madras because that is precisely what the official site says:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

So you should now claim that until 1801, your "nawab" ruled parts of Mysore and most of southern AP. Do you claim that? Or are you making a special exception for Madras just to back up your ill-advised baseless claim that Madras was in the firm control of your "nawab" in the 1750s?

Rashmun wrote:
--> I find your repeated usage of the term 'your nawabs' to be xenophobic and insulting to south indian muslims who view him as an iconic figure.

Are you a southern Indian Muslim now?

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:11 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
--> I did assume that their definition of the Carnatic included Madras because that is precisely what the official site says:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

So you should now claim that until 1801, your "nawab" ruled parts of Mysore and most of southern AP. Do you claim that? Or are you making a special exception for Madras just to back up your ill-advised baseless claim that Madras was in the firm control of your "nawab" in the 1750s?

Rashmun wrote:
--> I find your repeated usage of the term 'your nawabs' to be xenophobic and insulting to south indian muslims who view him as an iconic figure.
Are you a southern Indian Muslim now?

PP Method!

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:21 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
--> I did assume that their definition of the Carnatic included Madras because that is precisely what the official site says:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

So you should now claim that until 1801, your "nawab" ruled parts of Mysore and most of southern AP. Do you claim that? Or are you making a special exception for Madras just to back up your ill-advised baseless claim that Madras was in the firm control of your "nawab" in the 1750s?

--> I am only saying that my arguments so far are based on the facts presented in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which is endorsed by N.Ram, editor in chief of the Hindu. This site says that administrative control over the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in 1801 and it includes Madras within the Carnatic. And also one Times of India article which presented the views of an expert on the history of the Nawabs of Arcot who said that Nawab Wallajah shifted the capital of the Arcot Nawabs from Arcot to Madras.So the argument that Madras was under administrative control of the Nawabs for at least some time is not baseless but is based on two sources.

--> Nawab of Arcot is a part of Indian history whether random regionalists and assorted telangans like it or not. I am an Indian and the Nawab is also an Indian. A regionalist would think of the Nawab as an outsider (hence the repeated usage of the term 'your nawabs') because he is not a part of the same clique/tribe as the regionalist.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:42 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
--> I did assume that their definition of the Carnatic included Madras because that is precisely what the official site says:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

So you should now claim that until 1801, your "nawab" ruled parts of Mysore and most of southern AP. Do you claim that? Or are you making a special exception for Madras just to back up your ill-advised baseless claim that Madras was in the firm control of your "nawab" in the 1750s?

--> I am only saying that my arguments so far are based on the facts presented in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which is endorsed by N.Ram, editor in chief of the Hindu. This site says that administrative control over the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in 1801 and it includes Madras within the Carnatic. And also one Times of India article which presented the views of an expert on the history of the Nawabs of Arcot who said that Nawab Wallajah shifted the capital of the Arcot Nawabs from Arcot to Madras.So the argument that Madras was under administrative control of the Nawabs for at least some time is not baseless but is based on two sources.

--> Nawab of Arcot is a part of Indian history whether random regionalists and assorted telangans like it or not. I am an Indian and the Nawab is also an Indian. A regionalist would think of the Nawab as an outsider (hence the repeated usage of the term 'your nawabs') because he is not a part of the same clique/tribe as the regionalist.

in my opinion the 'your Nawab' mindset is the same mindset which led to Telangana hoodlums destroying the statues of iconic figures from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.

Hyderabad: Statues of 16
Telugu poets, writers and rulers were vandalised by Telangana protesters
during the 'million march' at Tank Bund here on Thursday.
The
protestors demolished some statues and threw them in Hussain Sagar Lake
and disfigured the others. The historic figures belonging to Andhra and
Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh became the target.

The statues of famous Telugu poets Yerrapragada, Sri Sri, Gurram
Jashuva, Annamayya and Vemana, the famous king of Vijayanagar empire
Srikrishnadevaraya and social reformer Kandukuri Veeresalingam were
completely or partially damaged.

The mob also destroyed the platforms on which the statues were
installed and even removed plates carrying their names and brief
history.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Arun Sabarwal said a total of 16 statues were damaged.
The attackers also left long ropes around the necks of some statues and put up flags and banners of various parties.

It was in 1980s that the then chief minister N.T. Rama Rao had
installed the statues of 33 historical figures of Telugus on Tank Bund
along the lake to highlight the contributions they made for the growth
of Telugu language and culture.

http://www.sify.com/news/telangana-march-statues-of-telugu-personalities-damaged-news-national-ldkxufecejg.html

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:I am only saying that my arguments so far are based on the facts presented in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which is endorsed by N.Ram, editor in chief of the Hindu.

Rashmun Method!

Rashmun wrote:This site says that administrative control over the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in 1801 and it includes Madras within the Carnatic.

It also says Mysore and AP south of the Krishna river are within the Carnatic. So are you claiming that your "nawab" ruled Mysore and AP south of the Krishna river? Hint: the site does not claim administrative control over those other regions, just like it does not claim administrative control over Madras. The "Nawab of the Carnatic" was a grand title which had no bearing on reality; just like Bahadurshah Zafar called himself Badshah-e-Hind before 1857 although he only ruled the city of Delhi.

Rashmun wrote:Nawab of Arcot is a part of Indian history

There is no disputing that. He was certainly a minor character in Indian history whom you have taken to hero-worshiping in characteristic fashion. It is because you are so taken up with the nawabs that I call them your nawabs. I don't imply that he is an outsider any more than I imply that you are an outsider.

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
--> I did assume that their definition of the Carnatic included Madras because that is precisely what the official site says:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

So you should now claim that until 1801, your "nawab" ruled parts of Mysore and most of southern AP. Do you claim that? Or are you making a special exception for Madras just to back up your ill-advised baseless claim that Madras was in the firm control of your "nawab" in the 1750s?

--> I am only saying that my arguments so far are based on the facts presented in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which is endorsed by N.Ram, editor in chief of the Hindu. This site says that administrative control over the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in 1801 and it includes Madras within the Carnatic. And also one Times of India article which presented the views of an expert on the history of the Nawabs of Arcot who said that Nawab Wallajah shifted the capital of the Arcot Nawabs from Arcot to Madras.So the argument that Madras was under administrative control of the Nawabs for at least some time is not baseless but is based on two sources.

--> Nawab of Arcot is a part of Indian history whether random regionalists and assorted telangans like it or not. I am an Indian and the Nawab is also an Indian. A regionalist would think of the Nawab as an outsider (hence the repeated usage of the term 'your nawabs') because he is not a part of the same clique/tribe as the regionalist.

in my opinion the 'your Nawab' mindset is the same mindset which led to Telangana hoodlums destroying the statues of iconic figures from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.

Hyderabad: Statues of 16
Telugu poets, writers and rulers were vandalised by Telangana protesters
during the 'million march' at Tank Bund here on Thursday.
The
protestors demolished some statues and threw them in Hussain Sagar Lake
and disfigured the others. The historic figures belonging to Andhra and
Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh became the target.

The statues of famous Telugu poets Yerrapragada, Sri Sri, Gurram
Jashuva, Annamayya and Vemana, the famous king of Vijayanagar empire
Srikrishnadevaraya and social reformer Kandukuri Veeresalingam were
completely or partially damaged.

The mob also destroyed the platforms on which the statues were
installed and even removed plates carrying their names and brief
history.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Arun Sabarwal said a total of 16 statues were damaged.
The attackers also left long ropes around the necks of some statues and put up flags and banners of various parties.

It was in 1980s that the then chief minister N.T. Rama Rao had
installed the statues of 33 historical figures of Telugus on Tank Bund
along the lake to highlight the contributions they made for the growth
of Telugu language and culture.

http://www.sify.com/news/telangana-march-statues-of-telugu-personalities-damaged-news-national-ldkxufecejg.html

Malik Kafur in TN -- How Tamil Nadu lost its Sovereignty (Educating Rasmun about TN lesson) - Page 2 3077217049

I am surprised it is not linked to bigger disasters.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:53 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I am only saying that my arguments so far are based on the facts presented in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which is endorsed by N.Ram, editor in chief of the Hindu.
Rashmun Method!

PP Method!

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This site says that administrative control over the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in 1801 and it includes Madras within the Carnatic.
It also says Mysore and AP south of the Krishna river are within the Carnatic. So are you claiming that your "nawab" ruled Mysore and AP south of the Krishna river? Hint: the site does not claim administrative control over those other regions, just like it does not claim administrative control over Madras. The "Nawab of the Carnatic" was a grand title which had no bearing on reality; just like Bahadurshah Zafar called himself Badshah-e-Hind before 1857 although he only ruled the city of Delhi.

read carefully. the site actually recognizes the existence of Mysore state.

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/intro.html

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Nawab of Arcot is a part of Indian history
There is no disputing that. He was certainly a minor character in Indian history whom you have taken to hero-worshiping in characteristic fashion. It is because you are so taken up with the nawabs that I call them your nawabs. I don't imply that he is an outsider any more than I imply that you are an outsider.

i am as much taken up by the Nawabs as the rest of the world is. the only reason you would call him 'your nawab' is because you regard him to be an outsider.

S. Muthiah, historian and storyteller, requested that the records of the Arcot family and the records in other places of historical importance be made available to researchers. "Those records have some of the finest stories of this part of the world... The website will never be able to do justice to the kind of details in the original records." The Chepauk palace was "architecturally one of the most significant buildings" in India because the palace was built a hundred years before Indo-Saracenic architecture was talked about. This was the beginning of that school of architecture.

Proven success

"We do not want hagiographies we want proper histories and this is a first step," Mr. Ram said and added that the website had relied upon proven sources. He described the Arcot lineage as "great agents of historical change as well as continuity" and said, "the period witnessed traumatic events as well as periods of development."

"While being devout Muslims, the Nawabs of Carnatic and the Princes of Arcot deserve to be celebrated for their respect for diversity," he said adding that the Carnatic Nawabs practised secularism even before the word was invented.

Commenting on the website, Mr. Ram said there was a need to fill up the 12-year-gap when the title changed from Nawab to Prince of Arcot.

Nawab Adbul Ali explained that the gap was because the last Nawab, who died in 1855, did not have an heir. A legal battle followed in England and the then Queen of England granted the title Prince of Arcot to the uncle of the Nawab. The gap was the period when the case was fought.

Communal harmony

David Abbot, the Acting British Deputy High Commissioner in South India, who presided, said the history of the Nawabs was closely linked to the history of Tamil Nadu.

Noting the Prince of Arcot's service to the community and his interest in the promotion of communal harmony, he said the need for such service was very important at this juncture.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/08/19/stories/2004081908611200.htm

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:57 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
--> I did assume that their definition of the Carnatic included Madras because that is precisely what the official site says:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

So you should now claim that until 1801, your "nawab" ruled parts of Mysore and most of southern AP. Do you claim that? Or are you making a special exception for Madras just to back up your ill-advised baseless claim that Madras was in the firm control of your "nawab" in the 1750s?

--> I am only saying that my arguments so far are based on the facts presented in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which is endorsed by N.Ram, editor in chief of the Hindu. This site says that administrative control over the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in 1801 and it includes Madras within the Carnatic. And also one Times of India article which presented the views of an expert on the history of the Nawabs of Arcot who said that Nawab Wallajah shifted the capital of the Arcot Nawabs from Arcot to Madras.So the argument that Madras was under administrative control of the Nawabs for at least some time is not baseless but is based on two sources.

--> Nawab of Arcot is a part of Indian history whether random regionalists and assorted telangans like it or not. I am an Indian and the Nawab is also an Indian. A regionalist would think of the Nawab as an outsider (hence the repeated usage of the term 'your nawabs') because he is not a part of the same clique/tribe as the regionalist.

in my opinion the 'your Nawab' mindset is the same mindset which led to Telangana hoodlums destroying the statues of iconic figures from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.

Hyderabad: Statues of 16
Telugu poets, writers and rulers were vandalised by Telangana protesters
during the 'million march' at Tank Bund here on Thursday.
The
protestors demolished some statues and threw them in Hussain Sagar Lake
and disfigured the others. The historic figures belonging to Andhra and
Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh became the target.

The statues of famous Telugu poets Yerrapragada, Sri Sri, Gurram
Jashuva, Annamayya and Vemana, the famous king of Vijayanagar empire
Srikrishnadevaraya and social reformer Kandukuri Veeresalingam were
completely or partially damaged.

The mob also destroyed the platforms on which the statues were
installed and even removed plates carrying their names and brief
history.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Arun Sabarwal said a total of 16 statues were damaged.
The attackers also left long ropes around the necks of some statues and put up flags and banners of various parties.

It was in 1980s that the then chief minister N.T. Rama Rao had
installed the statues of 33 historical figures of Telugus on Tank Bund
along the lake to highlight the contributions they made for the growth
of Telugu language and culture.

http://www.sify.com/news/telangana-march-statues-of-telugu-personalities-damaged-news-national-ldkxufecejg.html
I am surprised it is not linked to bigger disasters.

is the smashing of statues of Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema icons by Telangan goons something very funny which we should all laugh at ?

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:58 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote: I am surprised it is not linked to bigger disasters.

is the smashing of statues of Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema icons by Telangan goons something very funny which we should all laugh at ?

No, the only thing worth laughing at in this whole thread is: you. Very Happy

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:59 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote: I am surprised it is not linked to bigger disasters.

is the smashing of statues of Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema icons by Telangan goons something very funny which we should all laugh at ?
No, the only thing worth laughing at in this whole thread is: you.

PP Method! When caught with your pants down again and again, still pretend that all is not lost. lol!

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:10 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I am only saying that my arguments so far are based on the facts presented in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which is endorsed by N.Ram, editor in chief of the Hindu.
Rashmun Method!

PP Method!

See, this is another illustration of the Rashmun Method! When I called you on a specific aspect of the Rashmun Method (citing someone famous as if that proves anything), and all you can do is repeat the words back at me with my name substituted. If I call you a bigot for posting rather bigoted views about Telugus (that their faces look like butts), you just echo that back at me calling me a bigot. When others call you a mullah, you call them mullahs. This kind of echoing behavior is something that most people learn to get over at around eight years of age. They then go on to develop better tools of rhetoric. You still have so much to look forward to!

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This site says that administrative control over the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in 1801 and it includes Madras within the Carnatic.
It also says Mysore and AP south of the Krishna river are within the Carnatic. So are you claiming that your "nawab" ruled Mysore and AP south of the Krishna river? Hint: the site does not claim administrative control over those other regions, just like it does not claim administrative control over Madras. The "Nawab of the Carnatic" was a grand title which had no bearing on reality; just like Bahadurshah Zafar called himself Badshah-e-Hind before 1857 although he only ruled the city of Delhi.

read carefully. the site actually recognizes the existence of Mysore state.

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

Mysore is part of the Carnatic. Your claim that your nawab ruled Madras is based on his ruling all of the Carnatic. So did he rule all of the Carnatic, or did he not? Which is it?

Rashmun wrote:i am as much taken up by the Nawabs as the rest of the world is.

Hahaha, this is the funniest statement yet on this thread. The rest of the world, eh? Excuse me, hahaha! There is nobody other than you on SuCH who is taken up with him. There are approximately a dozen people in the whole world who are taken up with him, give or take ten. There are more people taken up with the world's largest ball of twine than with your "nawab." Thanks for the laughs, though!

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:15 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i am as much taken up by the Nawabs as the rest of the world is.
Hahaha, this is the funniest statement yet on this thread. The rest of the world, eh? Excuse me, hahaha! There is nobody other than you on SuCH who is taken up with him. There are approximately a dozen people in the whole world who are taken up with him, give or take ten. There are more people taken up with the world's largest ball of twine than with your "nawab." Thanks for the laughs, though!

--> Spoken like a fraudulent regionalist! Those idol smashing Telangans would i ams sure be proud of their tribal brother. Thanks for the laughs anyways.

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:19 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote: I am surprised it is not linked to bigger disasters.

is the smashing of statues of Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema icons by Telangan goons something very funny which we should all laugh at ?
No, the only thing worth laughing at in this whole thread is: you.

PP Method! When caught with your pants down again and again, still pretend that all is not lost.

Sir, pretending that all is not lost is your field of expertise. It is an area in which you have acquired considerable expertise over the last several months. On issue after issue you dig yourself into a hole and refuse to come out of it when offered a way out. The hole only gets deeper with every new topic, and your current strategy of trying to fill the hole by crapping in it is not working -- you are just getting filthier, is all. Meanwhile, I am just laughing at your contortions, as are any others who care to read your nonsense.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:25 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I am only saying that my arguments so far are based on the facts presented in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which is endorsed by N.Ram, editor in chief of the Hindu.
Rashmun Method!

PP Method!
See, this is another illustration of the Rashmun Method! When I called you on a specific aspect of the Rashmun Method (citing someone famous as if that proves anything), and all you can do is repeat the words back at me with my name substituted. If I call you a bigot for posting rather bigoted views about Telugus (that their faces look like butts), you just echo that back at me calling me a bigot. When others call you a mullah, you call them mullahs. This kind of echoing behavior is something that most people learn to get over at around eight years of age. They then go on to develop better tools of rhetoric. You still have so much to look forward to!

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This site says that administrative control over the Carnatic was only handed over to the British in 1801 and it includes Madras within the Carnatic.
It also says Mysore and AP south of the Krishna river are within the Carnatic. So are you claiming that your "nawab" ruled Mysore and AP south of the Krishna river? Hint: the site does not claim administrative control over those other regions, just like it does not claim administrative control over Madras. The "Nawab of the Carnatic" was a grand title which had no bearing on reality; just like Bahadurshah Zafar called himself Badshah-e-Hind before 1857 although he only ruled the city of Delhi.

read carefully. the site actually recognizes the existence of Mysore state.

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

Mysore is part of the Carnatic. Your claim that your nawab ruled Madras is based on his ruling all of the Carnatic. So did he rule all of the Carnatic, or did he not? Which is it?

--> Wrong again. For instance, the TOI article which quotes the expert on the Nawabs, explicitly says that Nawab Wallajah transferred the capital of the Nawabs from Arcot to Madras.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:25 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote: I am surprised it is not linked to bigger disasters.

is the smashing of statues of Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema icons by Telangan goons something very funny which we should all laugh at ?
No, the only thing worth laughing at in this whole thread is: you.

PP Method! When caught with your pants down again and again, still pretend that all is not lost.
Sir, pretending that all is not lost is your field of expertise. It is an area in which you have acquired considerable expertise over the last several months. On issue after issue you dig yourself into a hole and refuse to come out of it when offered a way out. The hole only gets deeper with every new topic, and your current strategy of trying to fill the hole by crapping in it is not working -- you are just getting filthier, is all. Meanwhile, I am just laughing at your contortions, as are any others who care to read your nonsense.

PP Method!

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:For instance, the TOI article which quotes the expert on the Nawabs, explicitly says that Nawab Wallajah transferred the capital of the Nawabs from Arcot to Madras.

So, evidence from even the website of your "nawabs" doesn't add up to the toilet paper article, and you rely on the toilet paper article in that case!

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:32 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:For instance, the TOI article which quotes the expert on the Nawabs, explicitly says that Nawab Wallajah transferred the capital of the Nawabs from Arcot to Madras.

So, evidence from even the website of your "nawabs" doesn't add up to the toilet paper article, and you rely on the toilet paper article in that case!

Incorrect. The two sources corroborate each other in this case. By the way, is everything written in Times of India to be disregarded because it is toilet paper?

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:By the way, is everything written in Times of India to be disregarded because it is toilet paper?

No, only stuff written in ToI which flies in the face of widely accepted truths. For instance, it is widely accepted that Madras was founded as a city by the British, that it was ruled by the British (except for three years when the French ruled it), and that the Nawabs of Arcot merely lived there for security and convenience. Now if the Times reports that their "capital" was in Madras, one should not leap to the conclusion that the "Nawabs" ruled the city until 1801. This is because the Toilet Paper of India is known for its lax editorial standards and lazy journalism.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:40 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:By the way, is everything written in Times of India to be disregarded because it is toilet paper?
No, only stuff written in ToI which flies in the face of widely accepted truths. For instance, it is widely accepted that Madras was founded as a city by the British, that it was ruled by the British (except for three years when the French ruled it), and that the Nawabs of Arcot merely lived there for security and convenience. Now if the Times reports that their "capital" was in Madras, one should not leap to the conclusion that the "Nawabs" ruled the city until 1801. This is because the Toilet Paper of India is known for its lax editorial standards and lazy journalism.

The article is not presenting the view of a journalist working for the Times of India. If this would have been the case your criticism could have been valid. The article is presenting the views of an expert on the history of the Nawabs of Arcot.

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:By the way, is everything written in Times of India to be disregarded because it is toilet paper?
No, only stuff written in ToI which flies in the face of widely accepted truths. For instance, it is widely accepted that Madras was founded as a city by the British, that it was ruled by the British (except for three years when the French ruled it), and that the Nawabs of Arcot merely lived there for security and convenience. Now if the Times reports that their "capital" was in Madras, one should not leap to the conclusion that the "Nawabs" ruled the city until 1801. This is because the Toilet Paper of India is known for its lax editorial standards and lazy journalism.

The article is not presenting the view of a journalist working for the Times of India. If this would have been the case your criticism could have been valid. The article is presenting the views of an expert on the history of the Nawabs of Arcot.

The journalist could have easily made a mistake and misreported what the "expert" said. For instance, if the "expert" said "the Nawab moved to Madras in 1750s and built a palace there," the journalist could have written that up as "the Nawab shifted his capital." We know for sure that one mistake was certainly made in the ToI article in that very sentence -- that the move was not made in the 1750s, but in the 1760s. Either the "expert" made that mistake, or the journalist did. Whoever made that mistake is capable of making the other mistake.

BTW, you should persist with the Telangana attack. Your attack on Telugus has petered out because non-Telugus have taken you to task for it. Perhaps you can prove that I am an evil untrustworthy person if you continue attacking the people of Telangana. Good luck.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:53 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:By the way, is everything written in Times of India to be disregarded because it is toilet paper?
No, only stuff written in ToI which flies in the face of widely accepted truths. For instance, it is widely accepted that Madras was founded as a city by the British, that it was ruled by the British (except for three years when the French ruled it), and that the Nawabs of Arcot merely lived there for security and convenience. Now if the Times reports that their "capital" was in Madras, one should not leap to the conclusion that the "Nawabs" ruled the city until 1801. This is because the Toilet Paper of India is known for its lax editorial standards and lazy journalism.

The article is not presenting the view of a journalist working for the Times of India. If this would have been the case your criticism could have been valid. The article is presenting the views of an expert on the history of the Nawabs of Arcot.
The journalist could have easily made a mistake and misreported what the "expert" said. For instance, if the "expert" said "the Nawab moved to Madras in 1750s and built a palace there," the journalist could have written that up as "the Nawab shifted his capital." We know for sure that one mistake was certainly made in the ToI article in that very sentence -- that the move was not made in the 1750s, but in the 1760s. Either the "expert" made that mistake, or the journalist did. Whoever made that mistake is capable of making the other mistake.

BTW, you should persist with the Telangana attack. Your attack on Telugus has petered out because non-Telugus have taken you to task for it. Perhaps you can prove that I am an evil untrustworthy person if you continue attacking the people of Telangana. Good luck.

The official site says that you are wrong again:

In 1754, the struggle between the English and the French ended with a treaty by which Muhammad Ali Wallajah was practically left the Nawab of the entire Carnatic.

With respect to Chepauk palace it is true that it became the official residence of the Nawabs in the 1760s, but remember that is one of the finest examples of Indo-Saracenic architecture and must have taken a long time to build.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:The official site says that you are wrong again:

In 1754, the struggle between the English and the French ended with a treaty by which Muhammad Ali Wallajah was practically left the Nawab of the entire Carnatic.

So was he practically left the Nawab of Mysore also?

Think carefully before you post next time. Very Happy

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:04 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The official site says that you are wrong again:

In 1754, the struggle between the English and the French ended with a treaty by which Muhammad Ali Wallajah was practically left the Nawab of the entire Carnatic.

So was he practically left the Nawab of Mysore also?

Think carefully before you post next time.

The official site clarifies that he was not Nawab of Mysore since it recognizes the existence of the State of Mysore:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/intro.html

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:09 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The official site says that you are wrong again:

In 1754, the struggle between the English and the French ended with a treaty by which Muhammad Ali Wallajah was practically left the Nawab of the entire Carnatic.

So was he practically left the Nawab of Mysore also?

Think carefully before you post next time.

The official site clarifies that he was not Nawab of Mysore since it recognizes the existence of the State of Mysore:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/intro.html

Your nawab's website does not do anything of the sort, but I am bored with this nonsense. You can pretend to believe that you were right. Between you and me, though, everybody knows you were wrong on this one, but that's OK as long as you keep pretending that you were right. I am not going to post any more in this circular thread unless you produce any real proof that the Nawabs ruled Madras in the 1750s -- not just some toilet paper junk. Enjoy the rest of your day.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:12 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The official site says that you are wrong again:

In 1754, the struggle between the English and the French ended with a treaty by which Muhammad Ali Wallajah was practically left the Nawab of the entire Carnatic.

So was he practically left the Nawab of Mysore also?

Think carefully before you post next time.

The official site clarifies that he was not Nawab of Mysore since it recognizes the existence of the State of Mysore:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/intro.html

Your nawab's website does not do anything of the sort, but I am bored with this nonsense. You can pretend to believe that you were right. Between you and me, though, everybody knows you were wrong on this one, but that's OK as long as you keep pretending that you were right. I am not going to post any more in this circular thread unless you produce any real proof that the Nawabs ruled Madras in the 1750s -- not just some toilet paper junk. Enjoy the rest of your day.

perhaps you need to put on your spectacles to read the words 'State of Mysore' in that sentence.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:20 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The official site says that you are wrong again:

In 1754, the struggle between the English and the French ended with a treaty by which Muhammad Ali Wallajah was practically left the Nawab of the entire Carnatic.

So was he practically left the Nawab of Mysore also?

Think carefully before you post next time.

The official site clarifies that he was not Nawab of Mysore since it recognizes the existence of the State of Mysore:

The old province known as the Carnatic, in which Madras (Chennai) was situated, extended from the Krishna river to the Coleroon and was bounded on the West by Cuddapah, Salem and Dindigul, all of which formed part of the State of Mysore.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/intro.html

Your nawab's website does not do anything of the sort, but I am bored with this nonsense. You can pretend to believe that you were right. Between you and me, though, everybody knows you were wrong on this one, but that's OK as long as you keep pretending that you were right. I am not going to post any more in this circular thread unless you produce any real proof that the Nawabs ruled Madras in the 1750s -- not just some toilet paper junk. Enjoy the rest of your day.

all along i have been claiming that there are two sources for my argument:
1. The TOI article which gives the views of an expert on the Nawabs.
2. The official website of the Nawabs.

In addition i have also given a Hindu article which emphasizes the importance of the Nawabs in South Indian history. Here is another Hindu article on the same theme (which debunks your 'your nawab' mindset and corroborates in some ways the other sources i have used in my arguments):

Zulfikar Ali quelled the rising Marathas and set up the hegemony of the Emperor below the Vindhyas. Thrilled with the development, the Emperor rewarded his loyal emissary with the title of the Nawab of Carnatic/Arcot in 1692. From him then begins the story of the Carnatic Nawabs, an interesting and essential part of the history of South India. For the house of the Nawabs, the city of Chennai, its seat for a long while, is part of living history. At every corner, one encounters small vignettes of the history, be it Chepauk Palace or the Wallajah Big Mosque in Triplicane that helped turned the pages in the voluminous history book of the Nawabs of Arcot.

The period of their rule continues to be an important period in the history of South India, marking the tumultuous age when the suzerainty of the grand Mughal empire waned in the face of a stronger conqueror — the British. The Nawabs have yielded enough riches to fill several thousands of books on the institution and its many rulers....

In 1801, the British took over the military and civil administration from the Nawab, who was reduced to being a titular head of the Carnatic.

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/08/12/stories/2007081250020200.htm

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:03 pm

there is something fundamentally irritating about a monarchy that survives on government dole and it is even more irritating when individuals and newspapers play toady to such a monarchy. this is why i can never understand the pomp and pageantry associated with the british monarchy. in that respect i'm very american.

by charvaka Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:12 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:there is something fundamentally irritating about a monarchy that survives on government dole and it is even more irritating when individuals and newspapers play toady to such a monarchy. this is why i can never understand the pomp and pageantry associated with the british monarchy. in that respect i'm very american.

It is easy to get toadies when you get free public money to spend on your charitable activities. Servility runs deep in the Indian psyche, thanks to our culture of exalting those in power. That is why these princes and maharajas still get treated by our media and people like Rashmun as if they are special. It is one thing if a poor man is subservient to his employer because that's the social norm; at least the man has no choice and he has a family to feed. But educated, comfortably-off people fawning over these princelings is pathetic. One of Indira Gandhi's positive actions was the abolition of privy purses and those stupid titles.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:15 pm

*** sorry wrong thread***

by ashdoc Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:09 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote: Tamil Nadu lost its sovereignty and continues to be an enslaved nation even after almost 700 years.

today india is free---but you seem to be a tamil separatist Evil or Very Mad

by Kris Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:16 am

ashdoc wrote:
Kayalvizhi wrote: Tamil Nadu lost its sovereignty and continues to be an enslaved nation even after almost 700 years.

today india is free---but you seem to be a tamil separatist

>>>KV is not alone in this worthwhile cause. There's also Tanji boy, he of Tamil Tribune fame with the wide readership of 30 people. This critical mass is a force to be reckoned with, you know.

by Guest Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:45 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:there is something fundamentally irritating about a monarchy that survives on government dole and it is even more irritating when individuals and newspapers play toady to such a monarchy. this is why i can never understand the pomp and pageantry associated with the british monarchy. in that respect i'm very american.

the government dole is in all probability minuscule compared to his financial requirements (he maintains, as i understand, a retinue of 600 people). i have heard of Rajas and Nawabs getting pensions of a minuscule amount of money (less than thousand rupees a month, sometimes even less than hundred rupees a month) because thousand rupees a month might have been a significant amount of money at the time of independence, but that is not true anymore. And the amount paid to these Rajas and Nawabs has remained exactly the same from the time of independence.

i would suggest that the current Nawab is probably making most of his money through business activities. (Many of the former Rajas and Nawabs converted some of their mansions into hotels, for instance.) I would be very surprised if he is earning all his money from government dole, and if this is indeed true i would agree with your comment.

by Guest Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:49 am

This is an interesting article on the Nawabs:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40105498?seq=1

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:04 pm

one question: pliss to clarify:

Why is it that you cut/vomit praises Muslim rulers, only about muslim rulers, and nothing but the muslim rulers of India.

Have you been invited to the Singh-Zardari secret Dinner ?

by Guest Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:30 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:one question: pliss to clarify:

Why is it that you cut/vomit praises Muslim rulers, only about muslim rulers, and nothing but the muslim rulers of India.

Have you been invited to the Singh-Zardari secret Dinner ?

the reason for this is that hindu kings were least interested in history. for this reason we know very little about them. the contemporary historical books we have about hindu kings (i.e. the kings predating the muslim kings) are not history but hagiographies which mix fiction and myth with fact (for instance the wannabe historian claiming that the king he is writing about is none other than Lord Shiva or none other than Lord Rama, etc. and ascribing various miracles to this king so as to please and flatter the king). It is a fact that before the coming of muslims, Indians by and large for whatever reason had no interest in history, and for this reason India produced no great historian (the solitary exception being the great Kalhana of Kashmir).

What history we know about Hindu kings in pre-Islamic India is often from the accounts of foreign travelers. Like we know about the great Harshavardhana from the writings not of an Indian but of the Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang. But these are very scanty.

I may have written earlier about Harshavardhana on Sulekha CH, but never mind, i shall write about him again.

by wn Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:01 am

does anybody knows anything about the descendants of umdat_ul_umra

by Sponsored content