Re: Nizam's generous side and love for books

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:06 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the only thing the nizam seems to have been generous about is his seminal fluid of which he seems to have given willingly and freely. from the article i posted a link to yesterday:

Nizam of Hyderabad is reported to have impregnated 86 of his mistresses,
siring more than 100 illegitimate children and a sea of rival claimants.

We need to ascertain whether he did this in the decades when he was a "good king" or the decade when he was "making some mistakes here and there." Research into this issue is ongoing.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:07 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Kannada and Marathi speaking people would have preferred to learn the southern variant of Hindustani rather than Telugu
This is a false choice. Only quixotic believers in authoritarianism would imagine that the choice for language of primary education is between Urdu and Telugu when it came to Kannada and Marathi regions. The choice for Kannada- and Marathi-speaking people was between Urdu and Kannada / Marathi.

All right they would still have preferred learning a national language which would serve as a link language, and which was well known in urban regions at this time, rather than a local language confined to their home regions.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:09 pm

charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the only thing the nizam seems to have been generous about is his seminal fluid of which he seems to have given willingly and freely. from the article i posted a link to yesterday:

Nizam of Hyderabad is reported to have impregnated 86 of his mistresses,
siring more than 100 illegitimate children and a sea of rival claimants.
We need to ascertain whether he did this in the decades when he was a "good king" or the decade when he was "making some mistakes here and there." Research into this issue is ongoing.

Did Krishnadeva Raya have only one wife? If not, why should you get upset if the Nizam had multiple wives or mistresses?

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:11 pm

Rashmun wrote:they would still have preferred learning a national language which would serve as a link language, and which was well known in urban regions at this time, rather than a local language confined to their home regions.

And you know their preferences better than they did. In the meanwhile, local private organizations in Telangana spent their own money -- with no assistance from the state -- to teach children the Telugu script, using textbooks printed in coastal Andhra. That is how my grandfather and grandmother learned to read and write Telugu. I guess those people didn't know what's good for them as much as their despotic tyrant and his apologist do!

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:14 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the only thing the nizam seems to have been generous about is his seminal fluid of which he seems to have given willingly and freely. from the article i posted a link to yesterday:

Nizam of Hyderabad is reported to have impregnated 86 of his mistresses,
siring more than 100 illegitimate children and a sea of rival claimants.
We need to ascertain whether he did this in the decades when he was a "good king" or the decade when he was "making some mistakes here and there." Research into this issue is ongoing.

Did Krishnadeva Raya have only one wife? If not, why should you get upset if the Nizam had multiple wives or mistresses?

I think I finally understand the reason behind your perplexing praise and defense of an autocratic tyrant. You think the Nizam ruled in the Middle Ages, don't you? Much of what the Nizam did was par for the course in the feudal Middle Ages, sure! Ah, this is a simple mistake of confusing the timelines. Anybody could have made such a mistake. People made lots of mistakes in the 1940s, for instance, so your mistake is all too excusable.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:24 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the only thing the nizam seems to have been generous about is his seminal fluid of which he seems to have given willingly and freely. from the article i posted a link to yesterday:

Nizam of Hyderabad is reported to have impregnated 86 of his mistresses,
siring more than 100 illegitimate children and a sea of rival claimants.
We need to ascertain whether he did this in the decades when he was a "good king" or the decade when he was "making some mistakes here and there." Research into this issue is ongoing.

Did Krishnadeva Raya have only one wife? If not, why should you get upset if the Nizam had multiple wives or mistresses?
I think I finally understand the reason behind your perplexing praise and defense of an autocratic tyrant. You think the Nizam ruled in the Middle Ages, don't you? Much of what the Nizam did was par for the course in the feudal Middle Ages, sure! Ah, this is a simple mistake of confusing the timelines. Anybody could have made such a mistake. People made lots of mistakes in the 1940s, for instance, so your mistake is all too excusable.

Hindu Rajas, who were contemporaries of the Nizams, were also having multiple wives and mistresses.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:31 pm

Rashmun wrote:Hindu Rajas, who were contemporaries of the Nizams, were also having multiple wives and mistresses.

One of the many, many reasons I don't sing praises of those Rajas. I have no love for the moochers who lorded it over the people and then lived off taxpayer dole. The Nizam's mooching is of course in a class apart, as I have already shown.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:32 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:they would still have preferred learning a national language which would serve as a link language, and which was well known in urban regions at this time, rather than a local language confined to their home regions.
And you know their preferences better than they did. In the meanwhile, local private organizations in Telangana spent their own money -- with no assistance from the state -- to teach children the Telugu script, using textbooks printed in coastal Andhra. That is how my grandfather and grandmother learned to read and write Telugu. I guess those people didn't know what's good for them as much as their despotic tyrant and his apologist do!

The point is that by the time the Nizams came to power Hindustani had spread all over India through trade and so it made sense for everyone in India to receive an education in Hindustani. There had to be a link language for the Kannadiga, Maharashtrian, and Telugu people in the Nizam's domain and also a link language connecting the people in the Nizam's domain with other Indians. A suitable language for this purpose was Hindustani.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:34 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Hindu Rajas, who were contemporaries of the Nizams, were also having multiple wives and mistresses.
One of the many, many reasons I don't sing praises of those Rajas. I have no love for the moochers who lorded it over the people and then lived off taxpayer dole. The Nizam's mooching is of course in a class apart, as I have already shown.

This was a fact of life all over the world. Even in modern times, JFK had many mistresses but he was at the same time a competent president. In my opinion, one needs to disassociate the private life of an individual from his public life.

by truthbetold Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:15 pm

Rashmun
t..armed st.. book clarifies the following:
T.. people fought against nizam's autocracy and his tax regime. Cpi fully fought nizam and razakars. r guha and vara vara rao statements if true were without any basis.

How do you judge a despot? Stalin hitler saddam all built big buildin. gs or factories.or armies. Few selfish people took advantage of those institutes. But when judged on thier entire rule they caused much larger harm than benefits. Thier own people hated them.

Nizam was neither powerful nor strong as above men but he presided over a regime that killed its own citizens in large numbers. His subjects decided he was a bad ruler.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:08 am

truthbetold wrote:Rashmun
t..armed st.. book clarifies the following:
T.. people fought against nizam's autocracy and his tax regime. Cpi fully fought nizam and razakars. r guha and vara vara rao statements if true were without any basis.

How do you judge a despot? Stalin hitler saddam all built big buildin. gs or factories.or armies. Few selfish people took advantage of those institutes. But when judged on thier entire rule they caused much larger harm than benefits. Thier own people hated them.

Nizam was neither powerful nor strong as above men but he presided over a regime that killed its own citizens in large numbers. His subjects decided he was a bad ruler.

thanks for sharing your views. i will just point out that there is a difference of opinion within Telangana Telugus with respect to their assessment of the Nizam. For instance:

Putting the Nizam's rule in perspective

I promise you this is going to be a short post. That is because even
though the subject is big, it has been dealt with many times at
different points in the blog in conjunction with the question of who
developed Hyderabad. The other day the famous Telugu poet and
participant in the original Telangana Armed Struggle, Dasaradhi
Rangachari was quoted by the Hindu as having said that he was
disheartened by the attempts being made to project the Nizam of
Hyderabad, especially the last Nizam, Mir Osman Ali Khan as a person who
was responsible for the development of the city. He is also quoted by
the Hindu as having said that the only thing that the Nizam had done was
set up the Osmania University and that too with the money of the people
which he had collected as taxes.

Without in anyway questioning the credentials of the great poet and his
contribution to the reduction of feudalism in the Telangana region, I
would like to join issue with his reported utterances. I am aware that
he is an octogenarian and has seen more of life and the region than I
have, but I have on my side an octogenarian (yes, my father, I will
invoke his experience here again) and also more than forty years of
living in Hyderabad to know what was the contribution of the last Nizam
to the development of the city of Hyderabad and also perhaps to some
areas of the region which was once the Hyderabad State. After having
read the reports in the newspaper cited above as usual it became a
subject of discussion between my father and me. While we have different
views on the Telangana question (he believes in separation and I don't)
we have agreements on many other things pertaining to Hyderabad.

After reading the report I sat back thinking and the first thought that
came into my head was that when I was a child going to school we were
taught that Hyderabad was the fifth biggest city in India. The other
four cities were (in the order then) Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and Madras.
Delhi was the Capital of not only the British Empire but also of the
other big empire that preceded it; the Mughal Empire. Calcutta, Bombay
and Madras were port cities that were developed by the British as
connection to the hinterland of India so that they could carry out trade
through shipping. So in effect we are talking of these four cities
having been developed due to the necessities of colonialism. But the
fifth biggest city Hyderabad, thanks to the policies of the Nizam was
never directly under British Colonialism even though it hosted a British
Resident for my years. Yet it had developed. It was in the
hinterland, not a port, did not have any solid agriculture, but it had
started nascent industrial development. Hyderabad always had wide
roads, an underground drainage and sewerage system and an architectural
style that was uniquely its own. Most constructions used the now famed
Indo-Sarcenic style and more importantly the city had a unique character
that was derived out of its tehzeeb or loosely put hospitality (I
cannot find a better word and therefore the loose translation). It also
had a system of drinking water which was a form of rain harvesting and
this was done by linking various tanks that were created to hold water.

So where did this all come from? Obviously it came from the Nizam's
rule. Dasaradhi Rangachari is not right in believing that it was only
the Osmania University that was the contribution of the Nizam to
development. And which ruler of any kind would do things without
collecting taxes from the people? Let me put it this way; it was
possible for the Nizam to collect taxes and do nothing for the people.
But he did do something for the people. The Osmania University was set
up and along with it a translation bureau to translate technical terms
of medicine, engineering and agriculture from English to Urdu. My
father tells me that the bureau was fully functional, unlike the Telugu
Academy which was set up in the 1970s, which has done nothing except
bring out English textbooks now. One cannot forget that even prior to
the setting up of the Osmania University, there was the Nizam College
set up in 1887 (hope my date is right) which was offering courses in
English medium and was affiliated to the Madras University till 1948-49
when it was made a part of Osmania University when the university had
switched over to offering education in English.

The Nizam also gave scholarships to students to pursue higher studies in
other regions with the rider that they come back and serve him. My
grand father and his brothers were beneficiaries of this. The Nizam set
up the Hyderabad Administrative Service and paid salaries that were
higher than what the British were paying to the Indian Civil Service
officers to attract good talent to his state. He enlisted the services
of the famed Mokshagundam Vishweshwaraiah who not only plotted the
course of the Isa and the Musi river and created the Himayat Sagar and
Osman Sagar (Gandipet) reservoirs but also created a system of
interlinked tanks from Medchal tank through the Fox Sagar tank to the
Hussain Sagar tank. I am not even talking of other linkages here since I
do not remember them too well. Then he tried to create a circular
railway and did create it actually much like the ring roads of today.
So where is the question of his not bringing about development? My
father tells me there was no religious bigotry either and that many
jagirdars were not even Muslims.

I am not lionising the Nizam, but I think it is extremely invidious to
accuse someone of having contributed only to backwardness when there are
glaring examples of conscious contribution to development. This post
also does not belittle the greatness of people such as Dasaradhi
Rangachari. It has only been made because of a fervent desire to
project things as they should be; sometimes even people that we may not
like do good things and just because we do not like them we cannot say
they never did any good. This post will also not deny the excesses of
the Razakars. That is also a true piece of history. But this is about
the contribution of the Nizam to development and therefore I have only
limited myself to it. The State of Andhra Pradesh is passing through a
critical phase and at this juncture it is imperative that we do not
distort history and create unnecessary antipathies between people.

http://avspolitics.blogspot.com/2012/01/putting-nizams-rule-in-perspective.html

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:32 am

Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rashmun
t..armed st.. book clarifies the following:
T.. people fought against nizam's autocracy and his tax regime. Cpi fully fought nizam and razakars. r guha and vara vara rao statements if true were without any basis.

How do you judge a despot? Stalin hitler saddam all built big buildin. gs or factories.or armies. Few selfish people took advantage of those institutes. But when judged on thier entire rule they caused much larger harm than benefits. Thier own people hated them.

Nizam was neither powerful nor strong as above men but he presided over a regime that killed its own citizens in large numbers. His subjects decided he was a bad ruler.

thanks for sharing your views. i will just point out that there is a difference of opinion within Telangana Telugus with respect to their assessment of the Nizam. For instance:

Putting the Nizam's rule in perspective

I promise you this is going to be a short post. That is because even
though the subject is big, it has been dealt with many times at
different points in the blog in conjunction with the question of who
developed Hyderabad. The other day the famous Telugu poet and
participant in the original Telangana Armed Struggle, Dasaradhi
Rangachari was quoted by the Hindu as having said that he was
disheartened by the attempts being made to project the Nizam of
Hyderabad, especially the last Nizam, Mir Osman Ali Khan as a person who
was responsible for the development of the city. He is also quoted by
the Hindu as having said that the only thing that the Nizam had done was
set up the Osmania University and that too with the money of the people
which he had collected as taxes.

Without in anyway questioning the credentials of the great poet and his
contribution to the reduction of feudalism in the Telangana region, I
would like to join issue with his reported utterances. I am aware that
he is an octogenarian and has seen more of life and the region than I
have, but I have on my side an octogenarian (yes, my father, I will
invoke his experience here again) and also more than forty years of
living in Hyderabad to know what was the contribution of the last Nizam
to the development of the city of Hyderabad and also perhaps to some
areas of the region which was once the Hyderabad State. After having
read the reports in the newspaper cited above as usual it became a
subject of discussion between my father and me. While we have different
views on the Telangana question (he believes in separation and I don't)
we have agreements on many other things pertaining to Hyderabad.

After reading the report I sat back thinking and the first thought that
came into my head was that when I was a child going to school we were
taught that Hyderabad was the fifth biggest city in India. The other
four cities were (in the order then) Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and Madras.
Delhi was the Capital of not only the British Empire but also of the
other big empire that preceded it; the Mughal Empire. Calcutta, Bombay
and Madras were port cities that were developed by the British as
connection to the hinterland of India so that they could carry out trade
through shipping. So in effect we are talking of these four cities
having been developed due to the necessities of colonialism. But the
fifth biggest city Hyderabad, thanks to the policies of the Nizam was
never directly under British Colonialism even though it hosted a British
Resident for my years. Yet it had developed. It was in the
hinterland, not a port, did not have any solid agriculture, but it had
started nascent industrial development. Hyderabad always had wide
roads, an underground drainage and sewerage system and an architectural
style that was uniquely its own. Most constructions used the now famed
Indo-Sarcenic style and more importantly the city had a unique character
that was derived out of its tehzeeb or loosely put hospitality (I
cannot find a better word and therefore the loose translation). It also
had a system of drinking water which was a form of rain harvesting and
this was done by linking various tanks that were created to hold water.

So where did this all come from? Obviously it came from the Nizam's
rule. Dasaradhi Rangachari is not right in believing that it was only
the Osmania University that was the contribution of the Nizam to
development. And which ruler of any kind would do things without
collecting taxes from the people? Let me put it this way; it was
possible for the Nizam to collect taxes and do nothing for the people.
But he did do something for the people. The Osmania University was set
up and along with it a translation bureau to translate technical terms
of medicine, engineering and agriculture from English to Urdu. My
father tells me that the bureau was fully functional, unlike the Telugu
Academy which was set up in the 1970s, which has done nothing except
bring out English textbooks now. One cannot forget that even prior to
the setting up of the Osmania University, there was the Nizam College
set up in 1887 (hope my date is right) which was offering courses in
English medium and was affiliated to the Madras University till 1948-49
when it was made a part of Osmania University when the university had
switched over to offering education in English.

The Nizam also gave scholarships to students to pursue higher studies in
other regions with the rider that they come back and serve him. My
grand father and his brothers were beneficiaries of this. The Nizam set
up the Hyderabad Administrative Service and paid salaries that were
higher than what the British were paying to the Indian Civil Service
officers to attract good talent to his state. He enlisted the services
of the famed Mokshagundam Vishweshwaraiah who not only plotted the
course of the Isa and the Musi river and created the Himayat Sagar and
Osman Sagar (Gandipet) reservoirs but also created a system of
interlinked tanks from Medchal tank through the Fox Sagar tank to the
Hussain Sagar tank. I am not even talking of other linkages here since I
do not remember them too well. Then he tried to create a circular
railway and did create it actually much like the ring roads of today.
So where is the question of his not bringing about development? My
father tells me there was no religious bigotry either and that many
jagirdars were not even Muslims.

I am not lionising the Nizam, but I think it is extremely invidious to
accuse someone of having contributed only to backwardness when there are
glaring examples of conscious contribution to development. This post
also does not belittle the greatness of people such as Dasaradhi
Rangachari. It has only been made because of a fervent desire to
project things as they should be; sometimes even people that we may not
like do good things and just because we do not like them we cannot say
they never did any good. This post will also not deny the excesses of
the Razakars. That is also a true piece of history. But this is about
the contribution of the Nizam to development and therefore I have only
limited myself to it. The State of Andhra Pradesh is passing through a
critical phase and at this juncture it is imperative that we do not
distort history and create unnecessary antipathies between people.

http://avspolitics.blogspot.com/2012/01/putting-nizams-rule-in-perspective.html

On another note, do you agree that it is a little hypocritical for someone from Telangana to claim that he gorges on Nizami food like Hyderabadi Biryani and Haleem on an almost daily basis whenever he is in Hyderabad and then for the same person to go around slamming the Nizams. At the very least, this person should praise the Nizams for being connoisseurs of good food and for enriching the cuisine of modern Andhra Pradesh.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:42 am

Rashmun wrote:thanks for sharing your views. i will just point out that there is a difference of opinion within Telangana Telugus with respect to their assessment of the Nizam. For instance:

There are also "differences of opinion" within Iraqis about Saddam Hussein and within Germans about Hitler.

by doofus_maximus Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:45 am

[quote="Rashmun"]

Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rashmun

On another note, do you agree that it is a little hypocritical for someone from Telangana to claim that he gorges on Nizami food like Hyderabadi Biryani and Haleem on an almost daily basis whenever he is in Hyderabad and then for the same person to go around slamming the Nizams. At the very least, this person should praise the Nizams for being connoisseurs of good food and for enriching the cuisine of modern Andhra Pradesh.

Trashman logic in full flow here.

Nizam loved books, he personally developed the palate of APites. What benevolence..

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:50 am

[quote="doofus_maximus"]

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rashmun

On another note, do you agree that it is a little hypocritical for someone from Telangana to claim that he gorges on Nizami food like Hyderabadi Biryani and Haleem on an almost daily basis whenever he is in Hyderabad and then for the same person to go around slamming the Nizams. At the very least, this person should praise the Nizams for being connoisseurs of good food and for enriching the cuisine of modern Andhra Pradesh.

Trashman logic in full flow here.

Nizam loved books, he personally developed the palate of APites. What benevolence..

LOL.

Nizami food, n.: euphemism for starvation diet. From the lack of adequate food that the vast majority of the Nizam's subjects suffered from, thanks to the high taxes they had to pay to make the Nizam the world's richest man.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:51 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:thanks for sharing your views. i will just point out that there is a difference of opinion within Telangana Telugus with respect to their assessment of the Nizam. For instance:
There are also "differences of opinion" within Iraqis about Saddam Hussein and within Germans about Hitler.

Your comparison if flawed because there is sufficient evidence to show that Nizam was not doing any ethnic cleansing of his subjects. He even gave scholarships to deserving hindu students and he gave funding to hindu temples and organizations. Hence one of the reasons why he is praised is for his secularism. And by this secularism is meant the secularism of South Asia described by Amartya Sen.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:57 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:thanks for sharing your views. i will just point out that there is a difference of opinion within Telangana Telugus with respect to their assessment of the Nizam. For instance:
There are also "differences of opinion" within Iraqis about Saddam Hussein and within Germans about Hitler.

Your comparison if flawed because there is sufficient evidence to show that Nizam was not doing any ethnic cleansing of his subjects. He even gave scholarships to deserving hindu students and he gave funding to hindu temples and organizations. Hence one of the reasons why he is praised is for his secularism. And by this secularism is meant the secularism of South Asia described by Amartya Sen.

Hello, Saddam was also generous, and a lover of freedom! As was Hitler. Your hero the Nizam is not as great as Hitler or Saddam, but just as praiseworthy.

PS: Saddam was also secular. As was Hitler. Hitler once gave a dollar to a Jew.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:57 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:thanks for sharing your views. i will just point out that there is a difference of opinion within Telangana Telugus with respect to their assessment of the Nizam. For instance:
There are also "differences of opinion" within Iraqis about Saddam Hussein and within Germans about Hitler.

Your comparison if flawed because there is sufficient evidence to show that Nizam was not doing any ethnic cleansing of his subjects. He even gave scholarships to deserving hindu students and he gave funding to hindu temples and organizations. Hence one of the reasons why he is praised is for his secularism. And by this secularism is meant the secularism of South Asia described by Amartya Sen.
Hello, Saddam was also generous, and a lover of freedom! As was Hitler. Your hero the Nizam is not as great as Hitler or Saddam, but just as praiseworthy.

the question is that did the Nizam do any ethnic cleansing? And the answer is NO.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:58 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:thanks for sharing your views. i will just point out that there is a difference of opinion within Telangana Telugus with respect to their assessment of the Nizam. For instance:
There are also "differences of opinion" within Iraqis about Saddam Hussein and within Germans about Hitler.

Your comparison if flawed because there is sufficient evidence to show that Nizam was not doing any ethnic cleansing of his subjects. He even gave scholarships to deserving hindu students and he gave funding to hindu temples and organizations. Hence one of the reasons why he is praised is for his secularism. And by this secularism is meant the secularism of South Asia described by Amartya Sen.
Hello, Saddam was also generous, and a lover of freedom! As was Hitler. Your hero the Nizam is not as great as Hitler or Saddam, but just as praiseworthy.

the question is that did the Nizam do any ethnic cleansing? And the answer is NO.

The answer is: Razakars. As the popular song of the day goes: nAzIla minchinavurO naizAmu sarakarODA! (You have exceeded the Nazis, your Exalted Highness the Nizam-ul-Mulk!)

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:03 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:There are also "differences of opinion" within Iraqis about Saddam Hussein and within Germans about Hitler.

Your comparison if flawed because there is sufficient evidence to show that Nizam was not doing any ethnic cleansing of his subjects. He even gave scholarships to deserving hindu students and he gave funding to hindu temples and organizations. Hence one of the reasons why he is praised is for his secularism. And by this secularism is meant the secularism of South Asia described by Amartya Sen.
Hello, Saddam was also generous, and a lover of freedom! As was Hitler. Your hero the Nizam is not as great as Hitler or Saddam, but just as praiseworthy.

the question is that did the Nizam do any ethnic cleansing? And the answer is NO.
The answer is: Razakars. As the popular song of the day goes: nAzIla minchinavurO naizAmu sarakarODA! (You have exceeded the Nazis, your Exalted Highness the Nizam-ul-Mulk!)

Razakars did not target Hindus for being Hindus as i have shown earlier. Moreover, Razakars only came into existence in 1947. Formation of the Razakars was a mistake and a blot on the Nizam's legacy, but that does not take away from the Nizam the good things he did.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:Formation of the Razakars was a mistake and a blot on the Nizam's legacy, but that does not mean that we should take away the good things the Nizam did.

The Final Solution was a blot on Hitler's legacy, but that does not mean that we should take away the good things Hitler did. For instance, he once gave a dollar to a jew.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:09 pm

Rashmun wrote:Razakars did not target Hindus for being Hindus as i have shown earlier.

AV Satish Chandra wrote:This post will also not deny the excesses of the Razakars. That is also a true piece of history.

Parvathi Menon of Frontline wrote:The autocracy of the Nizam undoubtedly had a pro-Muslim, anti-Hindu aspect to it. The Nizam's administration was largely Muslim, Urdu was imposed on his subjects, and the Razakars' actions were targeted against Hindus.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:14 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Formation of the Razakars was a mistake and a blot on the Nizam's legacy, but that does not mean that we should take away the good things the Nizam did.
The Final Solution was a blot on Hitler's legacy, but that does not mean that we should take away the good things Hitler did. For instance, he once gave a dollar to a jew.

Razakars were only targeting people who wanted to merge the Nizam's state with India. They were not targeting on the basis of ethnicity or religion. In contrast to the Nizam, Hitler had started targeting a specific community and he was killing people of this community just for belonging to this community. Hence your comparison is inherently flawed.
Moreover, one has to take into account the fact that a madness had seized the Indian sub-continent at the time the Razakars were formed (1947). Millions of people died in north-west India and east India at this time because of wrong decisions taken by the top Indian political leaders.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:18 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Razakars did not target Hindus for being Hindus as i have shown earlier.
AV Satish Chandra wrote:This post will also not deny the excesses of the Razakars. That is also a true piece of history.
Parvathi Menon of Frontline wrote:The autocracy of the Nizam undoubtedly had a pro-Muslim, anti-Hindu aspect to it. The Nizam's administration was largely Muslim, Urdu was imposed on his subjects, and the Razakars' actions were targeted against Hindus.

I have never denied that the Razakars committed excesses. So there is no contradiction between what i say and what Satish Chandra says.
With respect to Parvathi Menon's article, the sentence should be read as 'the Razakars' actions were targeted primarily against Hindus' because Menon herself says that Razakars included Hindus amongst them, and also the fact that many Hindu mathas and Hindu landowners had thrown their support behind the Nizam. And so it is obvious that the Razakars would not target Hindus for being Hindus because Why should the Razakars target their own supporters?

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:21 pm

Rashmun wrote:They were not targeting on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

This is your fantasy, arrived at using the Rashmun Method.

Rashmun wrote:In contrast to the Nizam, Hitler had started targeting a specific community and he was killing people of this community just for belonging to this community.

This is false. The Razakars were an overwhelmingly Muslim force in a state that had less than 15% Muslim population. They were targeting Hindus arbitrarily, sparing only those who joined them using the "if you are not with us, you are against us" principle. This fact of history can't be wished away.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:25 pm

Rashmun wrote:Moreover, one has to take into account the fact that a madness had seized the Indian sub-continent at the time the Razakars were formed (1947).

It appears that "a madness" had seized the Nizam much earlier.

William Dalrymple at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/dec/08/weekend.williamdalrymple wrote:
"[The Nizam] was as mad as a coot and his chief wife was raving," I was told by Iris Portal, sister of the British politician Rab Butler. She had worked in Hyderabad before independence.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:25 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:They were not targeting on the basis of ethnicity or religion.
This is your fantasy, arrived at using the Rashmun Method.

PP Method: when your argument has been demolished, start whining.

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In contrast to the Nizam, Hitler had started targeting a specific community and he was killing people of this community just for belonging to this community.
This is false. The Razakars were an overwhelmingly Muslim force in a state that had less than 15% Muslim population. They were targeting Hindus arbitrarily, sparing only those who joined them using the "if you are not with us, you are against us" principle. This fact of history can't be wished away.

The fact remains that the Razakars had hindus amongst them and they had hindu supporters. Moreover, there were muslims who were actively opposed to the Razakars. So the Razakars were not targeting hindus for being hindus, rather they were targeting anyone who was fighting for the merger of the Hyderabad state with India. Since most of the populace of the Nizam's kingdom were Hindus, the Razakars ended up targeting hindus more often than muslims.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:29 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Moreover, one has to take into account the fact that a madness had seized the Indian sub-continent at the time the Razakars were formed (1947).
It appears that "a madness" had seized the Nizam much earlier.

William Dalrymple at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/dec/08/weekend.williamdalrymple wrote:
"[The Nizam] was as mad as a coot and his chief wife was raving," I was told by Iris Portal, sister of the British politician Rab Butler. She had worked in Hyderabad before independence.

If the Nizam was truly as mad as a coot, then it is surprising that C.Rajagopalachari, Nehru, and Tagore showered praise on him. Instead of believing Rajaji, Nehru, and Tagore about the Nizam, PP prefers to believe an obscure Britisher.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:
The fact remains that the Razakars had hindus amongst them and they had hindu supporters.

google "sonderkommando".

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:31 pm

Rashmun wrote:The fact remains that the Razakars had hindus amongst them and they had hindu supporters. Moreover, there were muslims who were actively opposed to the Razakars. So the Razakars were not targeting hindus for being hindus, rather they were targeting anyone who was fighting for the merger of the Hyderabad state with India. Since most of the populace of the Nizam's kingdom were Hindus, the Razakars ended up targeting hindus more often than muslims.

This is a fantasy you have invented. Even your own sources say that Razakars targeted Hindus. The Razakars' leader's words that I posted make that crystal clear. You can continue to argue for argument's sake, though.

Your hero the Nizam was a traitor to India. And his Razakars committed crimes against humanity. But keep supporting them and making excuses for atrocities; it rather suits you.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:33 pm

rajaji tried to push hindi in TN. whatever else he may have done, tamilians like me will always hold that against him.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:35 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
The fact remains that the Razakars had hindus amongst them and they had hindu supporters.

google "sonderkommando".

the comparison is not justified because there were hindus who supported the Nizam and who did not want the merger with India (and hence they would obviously have supported the Razakars who were fighting against the merger). Moreover, there were muslims who were actively fighting for the merger with India and who were openly against the Nizams. The Razakars were targeting people who were for the merger of Hyderabad state with India. Now i am not denying that the Razakars committing excesses, but to claim that they were targeting hindus for being hindus seems nonsensical because there were hindus who supported them and muslims who opposed them.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:37 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The fact remains that the Razakars had hindus amongst them and they had hindu supporters. Moreover, there were muslims who were actively opposed to the Razakars. So the Razakars were not targeting hindus for being hindus, rather they were targeting anyone who was fighting for the merger of the Hyderabad state with India. Since most of the populace of the Nizam's kingdom were Hindus, the Razakars ended up targeting hindus more often than muslims.
This is a fantasy you have invented. Even your own sources say that Razakars targeted Hindus. The Razakars' leader's words that I posted make that crystal clear. You can continue to argue for argument's sake, though.

My sources also say that Razakars constituted hindus and they had hindu supporters and muslim opponents. So it is pointless for you to keep fantasizing that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus. The fact is that the Razakars targeted hindus primarily because most of the populace in the Nizam's kingdom constituted hindus.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Moreover, one has to take into account the fact that a madness had seized the Indian sub-continent at the time the Razakars were formed (1947).
It appears that "a madness" had seized the Nizam much earlier.

William Dalrymple at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/dec/08/weekend.williamdalrymple wrote:
"[The Nizam] was as mad as a coot and his chief wife was raving," I was told by Iris Portal, sister of the British politician Rab Butler. She had worked in Hyderabad before independence.

If the Nizam was truly as mad as a coot, then it is surprising that C.Rajagopalachari, Nehru, and Tagore showered praise on him. Instead of believing Rajaji, Nehru, and Tagore about the Nizam, PP prefers to believe an obscure Britisher.

Here is an instance of Nehru praising your autocratic hero:

The Sydney Morning Herald, September 8, 1948

India had asked the Nizam of Hyderabad "for the last time" to disband
the militant Moslem Razakar force, the Indian Premier, Pandit Nehru,
said in New Delhi to-day.

Pandit Nehru referred to "the growing terrorism and frightfulness in Hyderabad."
He said the Razakars had attacked 70 Hyderabad villages, killed hundreds
of people, and had made 150 incursions in Indian territory.

Interestingly, Nehru did not say, "oh, by the way, there are a few Hindus in the Razakar force, so let's not call it a militant Muslim force." He called the Razakar atrocities "terrorism." Do terrorists administer opinion polls before killing people, or do they randomly kill people in order to terrorize? Who do you believe now, Rashmun Method or Nehru?

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
The fact remains that the Razakars had hindus amongst them and they had hindu supporters.

google "sonderkommando".

the comparison is not justified because there were hindus who supported the Nizam and who did not want the merger with India (and hence they would obviously have supported the Razakars who were fighting against the merger). Moreover, there were muslims who were actively fighting for the merger with India and who were openly against the Nizams.

And there were Jews who were killing their own fellow Jews in accordance with Hitler's plans. So there, the comparison is complete.

Rashmun wrote:The Razakars were targeting people who were for the merger of Hyderabad state with India.

The Razakars did not administer an opinion poll to figure out who was "for" or "against" merger, before they killed people. They wanted to sow terror in the villages. Their modus operandi was to go into the Hindu quarters of the village and randomly kill, rape and loot. Any Muslims who came to the aid of the Hindus under attack were also killed. Quite a few Muslims perished this way, based on the accounts that I have heard.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:45 pm

charvaka wrote:Your hero the Nizam was a traitor to India. And his Razakars committed crimes against humanity. But keep supporting them and making excuses for atrocities; it rather suits you.

it is true that the Nizam is a hero to many Telangana people of today--both hindus and muslims--but he is not my hero. I am only trying to analyze his actions and behavior in a detached manner befitting a student of history. It is also true--from an Indian perspective-- that the Nizam was a traitor to India, but he would argue that he had the king of an independent state and he wanted an independent state after Indian independence in the same manner that the top Indian leaders had let go of present day Pakistan and Bangladesh. Sarojini Naidu, the great Telugu poet, captured the ambiguity in the hearts of many Hyderabadis when the State of Hyderabad was merged with India:

I feel sad for my state, but happy for my country.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:47 pm

sarojini naidu is a telugu poet? i didn't even know she was telugu!

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:So it is pointless for you to keep fantasizing that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus.

This is no fantasy. It is consistent with the numerous accounts that I heard from people who saw these things, and what I have read from many different sources. You should stop defending the indefensible. No, wait, don't stop. Go on, keep digging yourself deeper into a hole in support of murderers and traitors; you look great doing it.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:Sarojini Naidu, the great Telugu poet...

Rashmun, the great scholar on matters related to Hyderabad, the Razakars and the Nizam! Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 3 3077217049

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:49 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:sarojini naidu is a telugu poet? i didn't even know she was telugu!

Hahaha, this is what happens when one clutches at straws to find anything to copy-paste.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:49 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Razakars were targeting people who were for the merger of Hyderabad state with India.
The Razakars did not administer an opinion poll to figure out who was "for" or "against" merger, before they killed people. They wanted to sow terror in the villages. Their modus operandi was to go into the Hindu quarters of the village and randomly kill, rape and loot. Any Muslims who came to the aid of the Hindus under attack were also killed. Quite a few Muslims perished this way, based on the accounts that I have heard.

the accounts you have heard may be highly exaggerated. At any rate, arguing on the basis of hearsay evidence is unbecoming of anyone who claims to be a serious student of history. There is clear evidence that there were hindus (including hindu mathas and hindu landowners) who supported the Razakars and there is no reason why Razakars should target hindus for being hindus and thus lose an important support base.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:51 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sarojini Naidu, the great Telugu poet...
Rashmun, the great scholar on matters related to Hyderabad, the Razakars and the Nizam!

i called her a great Telugu poet not because she wrote great poetry in Telugu but because she was a Telugu and also a poet. It is true that her finest writings are in english. PP Method fails yet again!

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:52 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:So it is pointless for you to keep fantasizing that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus.
This is no fantasy. It is consistent with the numerous accounts that I heard from people who saw these things, and what I have read from many different sources. You should stop defending the indefensible. No, wait, don't stop. Go on, keep digging yourself deeper into a hole in support of murderers and traitors; you look great doing it.

As mentioned earlier, arguing on the basis of hearsay evidence is unbecoming of a serious student of history.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:54 pm

if sarojini naidu was a telugu, you rashmun already are, or will soon become, a tamilian.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Razakars were targeting people who were for the merger of Hyderabad state with India.
The Razakars did not administer an opinion poll to figure out who was "for" or "against" merger, before they killed people. They wanted to sow terror in the villages. Their modus operandi was to go into the Hindu quarters of the village and randomly kill, rape and loot. Any Muslims who came to the aid of the Hindus under attack were also killed. Quite a few Muslims perished this way, based on the accounts that I have heard.

the accounts you have heard may be highly exaggerated. At any rate, arguing on the basis of hearsay evidence is unbecoming of anyone who claims to be a serious student of history. There is clear evidence that there were hindus (including hindu mathas and hindu landowners) who supported the Razakars and there is no reason why Razakars should target hindus for being hindus and thus lose an important support base.

What I said is consistent with many different written accounts of the atrocities. Nehru called it terrorism. The Razakars' aim was not to cultivate a support base; they knew who was on their side: a majority of Muslims, and a small tiny minority of elite Hindus who benefited from feudalism. They also knew who was against them: the vast majority of Hindus, and a minority of poor Muslims. Their goal was stated clearly by their leaders: to sow terror in the hearts of the Hindus, to change the demographic balance of Telangana by killing Hindus and / or encouraging them to flee to coastal Andhra. You don't know any of this background and keep arguing for argument's sake. In this process, all you are doing is seriously damaging your own claim to being a nationalist Indian. Keep supporting traitors and murderers -- be loyal at least to them!

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:So it is pointless for you to keep fantasizing that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus.
This is no fantasy. It is consistent with the numerous accounts that I heard from people who saw these things, and what I have read from many different sources. You should stop defending the indefensible. No, wait, don't stop. Go on, keep digging yourself deeper into a hole in support of murderers and traitors; you look great doing it.

As mentioned earlier, arguing on the basis of hearsay evidence is unbecoming of a serious student of history.

It is a really easy bet for me to win that I have read more about the history of the Telangana liberation and the Nizams than you have.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sarojini Naidu, the great Telugu poet...
Rashmun, the great scholar on matters related to Hyderabad, the Razakars and the Nizam!

i called her a great Telugu poet not because she wrote great poetry in Telugu but because she was a Telugu and also a poet. It is true that her finest writings are in english. PP Method fails yet again!

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:59 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if sarojini naidu was a telugu, you rashmun already are, or will soon become, a tamilian.

all right i stand corrected: she was a bengali, who was born and brought up in hyderabad and who married a Telugu. On the other hand she clearly considered the State of Hyderabad to her home state (and not Bengal) and for good reason.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:00 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sarojini Naidu, the great Telugu poet...
Rashmun, the great scholar on matters related to Hyderabad, the Razakars and the Nizam!

i called her a great Telugu poet not because she wrote great poetry in Telugu but because she was a Telugu and also a poet. It is true that her finest writings are in english. PP Method fails yet again!

This issue has already been address in an earlier post. PP Method fails yet again!

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if sarojini naidu was a telugu, you rashmun already are, or will soon become, a tamilian.

all right i stand corrected: she was a bengali, who was born and brought up in hyderabad and who married a Telugu. On the other hand she clearly considered the State of Hyderabad to her home state (and not Bengal) and for good reason.

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 3 Backpedal

Faster, higher, stronger!

by Sponsored content