Re: Nizam's generous side and love for books

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:02 pm

Rashmun wrote:
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!

Hahaha, I posted my ROFLs and LOL between your two clarifications... the first one the limited backpedal where you claimed she was Telugu but not a Telugu poet, and the second one the full circle backpedal where you "stood corrected" but were not wrong. But, yes, what failed in all this is me!

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:04 pm

charvaka wrote:
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.

you had also read a lot about the Vijayanagar kings, but as it turned out i was the one who ended up being your teacher on the history of Vijayanagar.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/personal/carvaka-275896.htm

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:09 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote: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!
Hahaha, I posted my ROFLs and LOL between your two clarifications... the first one the limited backpedal where you claimed she was Telugu but not a Telugu poet, and the second one the full circle backpedal where you "stood corrected" but were not wrong. But, yes, what failed in all this is me!

The point is that Sarojini Naidu considered the State of Hyderabad to be her home state (and not Bengal) because she was born and brought up in Hyderabad and she also married a Telugu.
It is true that i was under the impression that she was a Telugu but i have corrected my mistake. After all, none of us are perfect and all of us make mistakes. For instance, your recent claim that Razakars were targeting Hindus on the basis of being Hindus was shown to be false because there were Hindus amongst the Razakars and also because many Hindus (including Hindu mathas and Hindu landowners) supported the Razakars.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
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.

you had also read a lot about the Vijayanagar kings, but as it turned out i was the one who ended up being your teacher on the history of Vijayanagar.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/personal/carvaka-275896.htm

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 4 Distra10

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:14 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote: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.

you had also read a lot about the Vijayanagar kings, but as it turned out i was the one who ended up being your teacher on the history of Vijayanagar.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/personal/carvaka-275896.htm

PP Method!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:56 pm

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

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.

you had also read a lot about the Vijayanagar kings, but as it turned out i was the one who ended up being your teacher on the history of Vijayanagar.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/personal/carvaka-275896.htm

PP Method!

Congratulations....

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:15 pm

The fact that the the Razakars were composed primarily of muslims and the fact that Razakars targeted primarily hindus (because they were targeting people who wanted merger with India and the vast majority of people in the Nizam's state were Hindus) meant that after the state of Hyderabad merged with India, a terrible communal carnage ensued which was worse than the one we saw recently in Gujarat:

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1805/18051130.htm

-----

That K.M. Munshi, India's Agent-General in the erstwhile state of Hyderabad, did not mention in his memoirs The End of an Era
(1957) the massacre of Muslims in many areas in the wake of the Indian
Army's "Police Action" in September 1948 - itself
a compromise with the truth - was but to be expected in view of his
outlook. Not so its omission in standard works by writers who aspired to
scholarly values and who were not communal; only "patriotic" in a
perverted but familiar manner. A rare exception
was the book by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader P.
Sundarayya, Telengana People's Struggle and its Lessons (1972). He wrote of the "untold miseries" that were inflicted on "the ordinary Muslim people" (pages 88-89).

Suppression of records is not only unethical but futile. More often than
not, the foreign scholar will unearth it from archives in London or
Washington, or in India itself. A German scholar has done just that.
Margrit Pernau records in her book The Pa
ssing of Patrimonalism that "while the occupation by the Indian army
had been quick and had caused only relatively few casualties, the
following communal carnage was all the more terrible. The Razakars had
sown wind and reaped not only storm but a hu
rricane which in a few days cost the lives of one-tenth to one-fifth of the male Muslim population primarily in the countryside and provincial towers". (page 336, emphasis added, throughout. See review on page 75).

Professor Wilfred Cantwell Smith, a scholar on Islam and a critic of
Jinnah's politics, wrote a seminal article in the periodical The Middle East Journal in 1950 (Volume 4) titled Hyderabad: A Muslim Tragedy.
He was Lecturer in Islamic Hist
ory at the University of the Punjab and at the Forman Christian College,
Lahore (1940-1946) and visited Hyderabad in 1949. In a critique of the
Nizam's policies and of Qasim Razvi, the leader of the Razakars, he also
fairly described the aftermath.

"Off the battlefield, however, the Muslim community fell before a
massive and brutal blow, the devastation of which left those who did
survive reeling in bewildered fear. Thousands upon thousands were slaughtered; many hundreds of thousands uprooted
. The instrument of their disaster was, of course, vengeance.
Particularly in the Marathwara section of the state, and to a less but
still terrible extent in most other areas, the story of the days after
'police action' is grim.

"The only careful report on what happened in this period was made a few months later by investigators - including a Congress Muslim and a sympathetic and admired Hindu - commissioned by the Indian Government
to study the situation. The report was
submitted but has not been published; presumably it makes unpleasant
reading. It is widely held that the figure mentioned therein for the
number of Muslims massacred is 50,000. Other estimates by responsible
observers run as high as 200,000, and by some
of the Muslims themselves still higher. The lowest estimates, even those
offered privately by apologists of the military government, came to at
least ten times the number of murders with which previously the Razakars
were officially accused... In some
areas, all the men were stood in a line, and done to death. Of the total Muslim community in Hyderabad, it would seem that somewhere between one in ten and one in five
of the adult males may have lost their lives in those few days. In
additio
n to killing, there was widespread rape, arson, looting, and
expropriation. A very large percentage of the entire Muslim population
of the Districts fled in destitution to the capital or other cities; and
later efforts to repatriate them met with scant s
uccess." He was referring to a report by Pandit Sundarlal (1886-1980)
and Kazi Muhammad Abdul Ghaffar(1889-1956).

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1805/18051130.htm

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:19 pm

Rashmun wrote:The fact that the the Razakars were composed primarily of muslims and the fact that Razakars targeted primarily hindus (because they were targeting people who wanted merger with India and the vast majority of people in the Nizam's state were Hindus) meant that after the state of Hyderabad merged with India, a terrible communal carnage ensued which was worse than the one we saw recently in Gujarat:

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1805/18051130.htm

-----

That K.M. Munshi, India's Agent-General in the erstwhile state of Hyderabad, did not mention in his memoirs The End of an Era
(1957) the massacre of Muslims in many areas in the wake of the Indian
Army's "Police Action" in September 1948 - itself
a compromise with the truth - was but to be expected in view of his
outlook. Not so its omission in standard works by writers who aspired to
scholarly values and who were not communal; only "patriotic" in a
perverted but familiar manner. A rare exception
was the book by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader P.
Sundarayya, Telengana People's Struggle and its Lessons (1972). He wrote of the "untold miseries" that were inflicted on "the ordinary Muslim people" (pages 88-89).

Suppression of records is not only unethical but futile. More often than
not, the foreign scholar will unearth it from archives in London or
Washington, or in India itself. A German scholar has done just that.
Margrit Pernau records in her book The Pa
ssing of Patrimonalism that "while the occupation by the Indian army
had been quick and had caused only relatively few casualties, the
following communal carnage was all the more terrible. The Razakars had
sown wind and reaped not only storm but a hu
rricane which in a few days cost the lives of one-tenth to one-fifth of the male Muslim population primarily in the countryside and provincial towers". (page 336, emphasis added, throughout. See review on page 75).

Professor Wilfred Cantwell Smith, a scholar on Islam and a critic of
Jinnah's politics, wrote a seminal article in the periodical The Middle East Journal in 1950 (Volume 4) titled Hyderabad: A Muslim Tragedy.
He was Lecturer in Islamic Hist
ory at the University of the Punjab and at the Forman Christian College,
Lahore (1940-1946) and visited Hyderabad in 1949. In a critique of the
Nizam's policies and of Qasim Razvi, the leader of the Razakars, he also
fairly described the aftermath.

"Off the battlefield, however, the Muslim community fell before a
massive and brutal blow, the devastation of which left those who did
survive reeling in bewildered fear. Thousands upon thousands were slaughtered; many hundreds of thousands uprooted
. The instrument of their disaster was, of course, vengeance.
Particularly in the Marathwara section of the state, and to a less but
still terrible extent in most other areas, the story of the days after
'police action' is grim.

"The only careful report on what happened in this period was made a few months later by investigators - including a Congress Muslim and a sympathetic and admired Hindu - commissioned by the Indian Government
to study the situation. The report was
submitted but has not been published; presumably it makes unpleasant
reading. It is widely held that the figure mentioned therein for the
number of Muslims massacred is 50,000. Other estimates by responsible
observers run as high as 200,000, and by some
of the Muslims themselves still higher. The lowest estimates, even those
offered privately by apologists of the military government, came to at
least ten times the number of murders with which previously the Razakars
were officially accused... In some
areas, all the men were stood in a line, and done to death. Of the total Muslim community in Hyderabad, it would seem that somewhere between one in ten and one in five
of the adult males may have lost their lives in those few days. In
additio
n to killing, there was widespread rape, arson, looting, and
expropriation. A very large percentage of the entire Muslim population
of the Districts fled in destitution to the capital or other cities; and
later efforts to repatriate them met with scant s
uccess." He was referring to a report by Pandit Sundarlal (1886-1980)
and Kazi Muhammad Abdul Ghaffar(1889-1956).

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1805/18051130.htm

if the figures given are correct, this was without doubt the worst communal carnage that has taken place in the history of independent India.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:22 pm

Rashmun wrote:if the figures given are correct, this was without doubt the worst communal carnage that has taken place in the history of independent India.

And that, finally, at last, establishes the Nizam as a "good king."

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:24 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The fact that the the Razakars were composed primarily of muslims and the fact that Razakars targeted primarily hindus (because they were targeting people who wanted merger with India and the vast majority of people in the Nizam's state were Hindus) meant that after the state of Hyderabad merged with India, a terrible communal carnage ensued which was worse than the one we saw recently in Gujarat:

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1805/18051130.htm

-----

That K.M. Munshi, India's Agent-General in the erstwhile state of Hyderabad, did not mention in his memoirs The End of an Era
(1957) the massacre of Muslims in many areas in the wake of the Indian
Army's "Police Action" in September 1948 - itself
a compromise with the truth - was but to be expected in view of his
outlook. Not so its omission in standard works by writers who aspired to
scholarly values and who were not communal; only "patriotic" in a
perverted but familiar manner. A rare exception
was the book by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader P.
Sundarayya, Telengana People's Struggle and its Lessons (1972). He wrote of the "untold miseries" that were inflicted on "the ordinary Muslim people" (pages 88-89).

Suppression of records is not only unethical but futile. More often than
not, the foreign scholar will unearth it from archives in London or
Washington, or in India itself. A German scholar has done just that.
Margrit Pernau records in her book The Pa
ssing of Patrimonalism that "while the occupation by the Indian army
had been quick and had caused only relatively few casualties, the
following communal carnage was all the more terrible. The Razakars had
sown wind and reaped not only storm but a hu
rricane which in a few days cost the lives of one-tenth to one-fifth of the male Muslim population primarily in the countryside and provincial towers". (page 336, emphasis added, throughout. See review on page 75).

Professor Wilfred Cantwell Smith, a scholar on Islam and a critic of
Jinnah's politics, wrote a seminal article in the periodical The Middle East Journal in 1950 (Volume 4) titled Hyderabad: A Muslim Tragedy.
He was Lecturer in Islamic Hist
ory at the University of the Punjab and at the Forman Christian College,
Lahore (1940-1946) and visited Hyderabad in 1949. In a critique of the
Nizam's policies and of Qasim Razvi, the leader of the Razakars, he also
fairly described the aftermath.

"Off the battlefield, however, the Muslim community fell before a
massive and brutal blow, the devastation of which left those who did
survive reeling in bewildered fear. Thousands upon thousands were slaughtered; many hundreds of thousands uprooted
. The instrument of their disaster was, of course, vengeance.
Particularly in the Marathwara section of the state, and to a less but
still terrible extent in most other areas, the story of the days after
'police action' is grim.

"The only careful report on what happened in this period was made a few months later by investigators - including a Congress Muslim and a sympathetic and admired Hindu - commissioned by the Indian Government
to study the situation. The report was
submitted but has not been published; presumably it makes unpleasant
reading. It is widely held that the figure mentioned therein for the
number of Muslims massacred is 50,000. Other estimates by responsible
observers run as high as 200,000, and by some
of the Muslims themselves still higher. The lowest estimates, even those
offered privately by apologists of the military government, came to at
least ten times the number of murders with which previously the Razakars
were officially accused... In some
areas, all the men were stood in a line, and done to death. Of the total Muslim community in Hyderabad, it would seem that somewhere between one in ten and one in five
of the adult males may have lost their lives in those few days. In
additio
n to killing, there was widespread rape, arson, looting, and
expropriation. A very large percentage of the entire Muslim population
of the Districts fled in destitution to the capital or other cities; and
later efforts to repatriate them met with scant s
uccess." He was referring to a report by Pandit Sundarlal (1886-1980)
and Kazi Muhammad Abdul Ghaffar(1889-1956).

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1805/18051130.htm

if the figures given are correct, this was without doubt the worst communal carnage that has taken place in the history of independent India.

it also explains why hyderabadi muslims are more communal than Lucknowi muslims to the extent that they have their own party which invariably always wins the muslim dominated assembly seats in hyderabad. Lucknowi muslims, in contrast, do not have their own party and vote for the mainstream parties like BSP and SP.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:24 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:if the figures given are correct, this was without doubt the worst communal carnage that has taken place in the history of independent India.
And that, finally, at last, establishes the Nizam as a "good king."

this communal carnage took place *after* the Nizam had been deposed.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:26 pm

LOLLLL@self evident pretzelling

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:

it also explains why hyderabadi muslims are more communal than Lucknowi muslims to the extent that they have their own party which invariably always wins the muslim dominated assembly seats in hyderabad. Lucknowi muslims, in contrast, do not have their own party and vote for the mainstream parties like BSP and SP.

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 4 M_020310st

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:31 pm

Now that it has been shown that the largest communal slaughter in independent India took place in South India, it is natural for a few South Indians to become upset or embarrassed or both.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:it also explains why hyderabadi muslims are more communal than Lucknowi muslims to the extent that they have their own party which invariably always wins the muslim dominated assembly seats in hyderabad.

So, in your own thinking, having a separate party for Muslims that gets most Muslim votes is communal, right? Don't say yes in a hurry -- think about this carefully. Still think so? Well, guess who started this communal party of the Hyderabadi Muslims!

Wikipedia article on the Majlis party

It was founded and shaped by Nawab Mahmood Nawaz Khan Qiledar Golconda of Hyderabad State by the advice of Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan the Nizam of Hyderabad and in the presence of Ulma-e-Mashaeqeen in 1927 as a pro-Nizam party... The MIM advocated the set up of a Muslim dominion rather than integration with India.

Even in the 1920s, when the Nizam was playing the Good King act of Rashmun's drama, Good King-Bad King, he clearly wanted to splinter India on religious lines. Great king, Rashmun?

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:Now that it has been shown that the largest communal slaughter in independent India took place in South India, it is natural for a few South Indians to become upset or embarrassed or both.

Actually Sundarayya's book -- which I have read -- says the worst rioting took place in Marathwada and in the territory of the Bombay presidency (outside the erstwhile Hyderabad state). We can consider that part of South India in this context if that makes you happy.

Sundarayya says in his book -- which I don't have with me at the moment, but can get to later in the day -- that reprisals against Muslims were prevented by the Communists who had Muslim leaders in its ranks, and the poor Muslims of Telangana villages typically fought on the side of the Communists against the Razakars anyway, so they were not targeted for reprisals.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:39 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:it also explains why hyderabadi muslims are more communal than Lucknowi muslims to the extent that they have their own party which invariably always wins the muslim dominated assembly seats in hyderabad.
So, in your own thinking, having a separate party for Muslims that gets most Muslim votes is communal, right? Don't say yes in a hurry -- think about this carefully. Still think so? Well, guess who started this communal party of the Hyderabadi Muslims!

Wikipedia article on the Majlis party

It was founded and shaped by Nawab Mahmood Nawaz Khan Qiledar Golconda of Hyderabad State by the advice of Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan the Nizam of Hyderabad and in the presence of Ulma-e-Mashaeqeen in 1927 as a pro-Nizam party... The MIM advocated the set up of a Muslim dominion rather than integration with India.

Even in the 1920s, when the Nizam was playing the Good King act of Rashmun's drama, Good King-Bad King, he clearly wanted to splinter India on religious lines. Great king, Rashmun?

I condemn the formation of this party completely and unequivocally. On the other hand, i would like to have more evidence of the precise nature of this 'advice' of the Nizam for this party to be formed. It could be that this party is falsely claiming that it was formed on the basis of some 'advice' of the Nizam so as to gain legitimacy amongst Hyderabadi muslims.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:41 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

it also explains why hyderabadi muslims are more communal than Lucknowi muslims to the extent that they have their own party which invariably always wins the muslim dominated assembly seats in hyderabad. Lucknowi muslims, in contrast, do not have their own party and vote for the mainstream parties like BSP and SP.

Is there a picture on the internets of scoring an own goal while attempting to move the goalpost?

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:It could be that this party is falsely claiming that it was formed on the basis of some 'advice' of the Nizam so as to gain legitimacy amongst Hyderabadi muslims.

From the same source:

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of the Nizam days.

Far from gaining legitimacy, claiming affiliation with the Nizam will get the party into hot political water. So your "it could be that" patented Rashmun Method speculation is a fail.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:44 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Now that it has been shown that the largest communal slaughter in independent India took place in South India, it is natural for a few South Indians to become upset or embarrassed or both.
Actually Sundarayya's book -- which I have read -- says the worst rioting took place in Marathwada and in the territory of the Bombay presidency (outside the erstwhile Hyderabad state). We can consider that part of South India in this context if that makes you happy.

Sundarayya says in his book -- which I don't have with me at the moment, but can get to later in the day -- that reprisals against Muslims were prevented by the Communists who had Muslim leaders in its ranks, and the poor Muslims of Telangana villages typically fought on the side of the Communists against the Razakars anyway, so they were not targeted for reprisals.

The frontline article does not dispute that the worst reprisals against muslims took place in Marathwada, but it also says that terrible reprisals against muslims took place in other areas as well including Hyderabad.

---
"Off the battlefield, however, the Muslim community fell before a
massive and brutal blow, the devastation of which left those who did
survive reeling in bewildered fear. Thousands upon thousands were slaughtered; many hundreds of thousands uprooted
. The instrument of their disaster was, of course, vengeance.
Particularly in the Marathwara section of the state, and to a less but
still terrible extent in most other areas, the story of the days after
'police action' is grim.

"The only careful report on what happened in this period was made a few months later by investigators - including a Congress Muslim and a sympathetic and admired Hindu - commissioned by the Indian Government
to study the situation. The report was
submitted but has not been published; presumably it makes unpleasant
reading. It is widely held that the figure mentioned therein for the
number of Muslims massacred is 50,000. Other estimates by responsible
observers run as high as 200,000, and by some
of the Muslims themselves still higher. The lowest estimates, even those
offered privately by apologists of the military government, came to at
least ten times the number of murders with which previously the Razakars
were officially accused... In some
areas, all the men were stood in a line, and done to death. Of the total Muslim community in Hyderabad, it would seem that somewhere between one in ten and one in five
of the adult males may have lost their lives in those few days. In
addition to killing, there was widespread rape, arson, looting, and
expropriation. A very large percentage of the entire Muslim population
of the Districts fled in destitution to the capital or other cities; and
later efforts to repatriate them met with scant s
uccess."

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:46 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be that this party is falsely claiming that it was formed on the basis of some 'advice' of the Nizam so as to gain legitimacy amongst Hyderabadi muslims.
From the same source:

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of the Nizam days.

Far from gaining legitimacy, claiming affiliation with the Nizam will get the party into hot political water. So your "it could be that" patented Rashmun Method speculation is a fail.

in my opinion it is a mistake to form a conclusive opinion about the Nizam based on one random wikipedia article when there are so many articles in respected publications claiming that he was secular. PP Method fails yet again!

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:54 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be that this party is falsely claiming that it was formed on the basis of some 'advice' of the Nizam so as to gain legitimacy amongst Hyderabadi muslims.
From the same source:

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of the Nizam days.

Far from gaining legitimacy, claiming affiliation with the Nizam will get the party into hot political water. So your "it could be that" patented Rashmun Method speculation is a fail.

As expected, the dishonest PP Method was at work when you wrote the above. This is what the wikipedia site whose url you gave says:

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of
the Nizam days. The constitution of the Majlis today recognizes
Hyderabad as a part of India, and the name has been changed ("All India"
was added) so that there should be no confusion on the position of the
Majlis on the national issue.^[5]
The basic aim of the AIMIM is to politically empower the minorities and
weaker sections in general, and the Muslims in particular.^[6]

----
what this means is that they accept Hyderabad as a part of India. Since the party was formed before independence, and before partition, there was a time when it did not accept Hyderabad as a part of India. it does not mean that they are distancing themselves from the Nizam.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:02 pm

if the Nizam was a tyrant and a bigot, and also communal, then it would surely amount to political suicide for a Top Hindu Telangana leader like KCR to praise the Nizam. But that is exactly what he does. Charvaka, please explain to us why KCR praises the Nizam and why he continues to enjoy popular support in Telangana.

------
T R S president K. Chandrasekhar Rao heaped praise on the Nizam of
Hyderabad at the celebration of Hyderabad Liberation Day at the party
office here on Thursday.Mr. Rao had kicked off a controversy a few years
ago when he praised the Nizam and even paid tributes at his grave at
King Kothi here.

The TRS president targeted the critics of Hyderabad
Liberation Day for ridiculing the celebrations and warned of severe
consequences if they did not stop it.
Mr. Rao took objection to
criticism that the day did not deserve to be celebrated to mark the
‘independence of Telangana’ and said it was certainly independence for
the region as it was freed from the clutches of feudal forces. September
17 was as important to people of Telangana as August 15 for the rest of
the State. He demanded the government to celebrate September 17
officially like in parts of Maharashtra and Karnataka that were hitherto
in the erstwhile Hyderabad State.

If the people of coastal districts
adore Cotton and have set up his statues, the people of Telangana were
well within their rights to honour the Nizam in a similar way. However,
Mr. Rao admitted to certain lacunae in the Nizam’s reign owing to the
feudalistic set-up of the time.
Addressing a press conference after
hoisting the national flag, Mr. Rao asked what was wrong in praising the
Nizam who did a lot good for Telangana. Could anyone claim that the
Nizam did not construct Nizamsagar which provided irrigation to three
lakh acres of land, he asked. The construction of Nizamsagar was a fact
of history like the Dowleswaram barrage which was built by Sir Arthur
Cotton.

http://raajaniti.blogspot.com/2009/09/kcr-praises-nizam-of-hyderabad-again.html

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:05 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be that this party is falsely claiming that it was formed on the basis of some 'advice' of the Nizam so as to gain legitimacy amongst Hyderabadi muslims.
From the same source:

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of the Nizam days.

Far from gaining legitimacy, claiming affiliation with the Nizam will get the party into hot political water. So your "it could be that" patented Rashmun Method speculation is a fail.

When praising and lauding the Nizam does not land the Hindu Telangana leader KCR in hot water, it is difficult to believe how claiming affiliation with Nizam would land a muslim party in Hyderabad in hot water.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:49 pm

Rashmun Method in action:

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of
the Nizam days. ...

it does not mean that they are distancing themselves from the Nizam.

Doesn't matter what any article says, just interpret it to mean what you want it to mean.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:54 pm

Rashmun wrote:if the Nizam was a tyrant and a bigot, and also communal, then it would surely amount to political suicide for a Top Hindu Telangana leader like KCR to praise the Nizam. But that is exactly what he does. Charvaka, please explain to us why KCR praises the Nizam and why he continues to enjoy popular support in Telangana.

KCR seems to have achieved something utterly remarkable. He comes across as more confused than you are. He celebrates Hyderabad Liberation Day, and uses the occasion to heap praise on the Nizam -- liberation from whose tyranny the day signifies. That is like celebrating Independence Day and heaping praises on the British. Or celebrating Gandhi Jayanti and heaping praises on Godse on the occasion. If KCR loves the Nizam like you do and thinks he was a good king like you do, that just confirms how crazy he really is.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be that this party is falsely claiming that it was formed on the basis of some 'advice' of the Nizam so as to gain legitimacy amongst Hyderabadi muslims.
From the same source:

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of the Nizam days.

Far from gaining legitimacy, claiming affiliation with the Nizam will get the party into hot political water. So your "it could be that" patented Rashmun Method speculation is a fail.

When praising and lauding the Nizam does not land the Hindu Telangana leader KCR in hot water, it is difficult to believe how claiming affiliation with Nizam would land a muslim party in Hyderabad in hot water.

Well, hot water or not: AIMIM of today tries to distance itself from the organization of the Nizam days. Go figure.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:56 pm

charvaka wrote:Rashmun Method in action:

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of
the Nizam days. ...

it does not mean that they are distancing themselves from the Nizam.

Doesn't matter what any article says, just interpret it to mean what you want it to mean.

PP Method: Selectively use snippets from what an article says to make your point which has no bearing on what the article itself says. By the phrase 'Nizam days' is meant the time when this party did not believe Hyderabad to be a part of India if we read the complete passage where the sentence occurs. The article is not saying that the party is trying to distance itself from the Nizam.

----

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of
the Nizam days. The constitution of the Majlis today recognizes
Hyderabad as a part of India, and the name has been changed ("All India"
was added) so that there should be no confusion on the position of the
Majlis on the national issue.^[5]
The basic aim of the AIMIM is to politically empower the minorities and
weaker sections in general, and the Muslims in particular.^[6]

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:58 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be that this party is falsely claiming that it was formed on the basis of some 'advice' of the Nizam so as to gain legitimacy amongst Hyderabadi muslims.
From the same source:

The AIMIM of today try to distance themselves from the organization of the Nizam days.

Far from gaining legitimacy, claiming affiliation with the Nizam will get the party into hot political water. So your "it could be that" patented Rashmun Method speculation is a fail.

When praising and lauding the Nizam does not land the Hindu Telangana leader KCR in hot water, it is difficult to believe how claiming affiliation with Nizam would land a muslim party in Hyderabad in hot water.
Well, hot water or not: AIMIM of today tries to distance itself from the organization of the Nizam days. Go figure.

If you read the entire passage carefully you will realize the true meaning of the phrase 'Nizam days'. it refers to the time when this party did not believe hyderabad to be a part of India. But your hatred for the Nizam means that you are unable to assess him in a detached manner.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:01 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:if the Nizam was a tyrant and a bigot, and also communal, then it would surely amount to political suicide for a Top Hindu Telangana leader like KCR to praise the Nizam. But that is exactly what he does. Charvaka, please explain to us why KCR praises the Nizam and why he continues to enjoy popular support in Telangana.
KCR seems to have achieved something utterly remarkable. He comes across as more confused than you are. He celebrates Hyderabad Liberation Day, and uses the occasion to heap praise on the Nizam -- liberation from whose tyranny the day signifies. That is like celebrating Independence Day and heaping praises on the British. Or celebrating Gandhi Jayanti and heaping praises on Godse on the occasion. If KCR loves the Nizam like you do and thinks he was a good king like you do, that just confirms how crazy he really is.

KCR is celebrating the union of Telangana with India. On the other hand, he is saying that he appreciates the good things the Nizam did for the people of Hyderabad state. Like getting the Nizamsagar dam constructed (which provides water for Hyderabad today). Your intense hatred for the Nizam means you are unable to analyze anything to do with the Nizam in a detached and impartial manner.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:28 pm

Rashmun wrote:in my opinion it is a mistake to form a conclusive opinion about the Nizam based on one random wikipedia article when there are so many articles in respected publications claiming that he was secular. PP Method fails yet again!

My opinion of the Nizam is not based on one random Wikipedia article. Unlike you, I have spent a lot of time actually reading about what happened, before I formed any definitive opinions about any of the players.

Here are excerpts from three books written by a Telugu, a Maharashtrian and a northindian.

The Nizam encouraged the formation of the Majlis Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, in 1927, to bolster the support of the Muslim masses to his kingdom, on the plea that 'Muslims are the rulers'. In 1928, it adopted as one of its objects, 'to develop loyalty to the King and his Government'. They used to propagate the divine theory of kingship -- that the Nizam was 'the shadow of god', 'zill-ul-lah', etc... They were for "full authority" for the Nizam.
Telangana People's Struggle and its Lessons, by Pucchalapalli Sundarayya, http://books.google.com/books?id=_7ixVpS52z8C&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=nizam+majlis+ittehad&source=bl&ots=Jz0OwClpKZ&sig=Vq-zgmTdrQ8GmFrXgD17hi7gGdk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JAmXT8iwDKnC6AGD263LDg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=nizam%20majlis%20ittehad&f=false

The concerted efforts of the communal Majlis-i-Ittehad-ul Mussulman to raise the slogan of Anaal Malik (literally "I am the King") can be interpreted in this context (Reddy, 1973:9; Pavier, 1981:70). With the Nizam's blessings, the Ittehad (as it was popularly called) was engaged in a last ditch legitimation campaign but it was to be too little too late.
Revolutioin in Telangana: 1946-1951, by Akhil Gupta, http://www.etelangana.org/books/revolution_tg_1946-51.pdf

Mahmud Nawazkhan, a retired official of Hyderabad founded the Majlis-i-Ittehad-ul-Mussulmeen (known shortly as Ittehad) in 1926. Its objectives were to unite the Muslims in the State in support of Nizam and to reduce the Hindu majority by large scale conversion to Islam. Later on Bahadurkhan (later known as Bahadur Yar Jung) became the leader of Ittehad... Bahadur Yar Jung insisted that Hyderabad be declared a Muslim state.
Marathwada under the Nizams, by P.V. Kate, http://books.google.com/books?id=tjndiykddsIC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=nizam+majlis+ittehad&source=bl&ots=aI4DX_EwgL&sig=V-nfIpohNmvVAjXsOKKlTNeafys&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JAmXT8iwDKnC6AGD263LDg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nizam%20majlis%20ittehad&f=false

Incidentally, the title of Bahadar Yar Jung was conferred on Bahadur Khan by -- guess who! -- the Nizam. The Nizam was a big fan of this guy.

So, Rashmun, do you still condemn the formation of the Majlis at the encouragement of the Nizam?

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:KCR is celebrating the union of Telangana with India. On the other hand, he is saying that he appreciates the good things the Nizam did for the people of Hyderabad state. Like getting the Nizamsagar dam constructed (which provides water for Hyderabad today). Your intense hatred for the Nizam means you are unable to analyze anything to do with the Nizam in a detached and impartial manner.

Yes, you and KCR are detached and impartial. I am biased. Smile

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:it also explains why hyderabadi muslims are more communal than Lucknowi muslims to the extent that they have their own party which invariably always wins the muslim dominated assembly seats in hyderabad.
So, in your own thinking, having a separate party for Muslims that gets most Muslim votes is communal, right? Don't say yes in a hurry -- think about this carefully. Still think so? Well, guess who started this communal party of the Hyderabadi Muslims!

Wikipedia article on the Majlis party

It was founded and shaped by Nawab Mahmood Nawaz Khan Qiledar Golconda of Hyderabad State by the advice of Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan the Nizam of Hyderabad and in the presence of Ulma-e-Mashaeqeen in 1927 as a pro-Nizam party... The MIM advocated the set up of a Muslim dominion rather than integration with India.

Even in the 1920s, when the Nizam was playing the Good King act of Rashmun's drama, Good King-Bad King, he clearly wanted to splinter India on religious lines. Great king, Rashmun?

I condemn the formation of this party completely and unequivocally. On the other hand, i would like to have more evidence of the precise nature of this 'advice' of the Nizam for this party to be formed. It could be that this party is falsely claiming that it was formed on the basis of some 'advice' of the Nizam so as to gain legitimacy amongst Hyderabadi muslims.

More evidence has been provided. Now it is clear that the Nizam encouraged the formation of this communal party. Still great king, I hope!

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:43 pm

Here are a few pictures that capture the Nizam's generous side.

About 10% of the territory of the state was the Nizam's personal property. On this property, all produce belonged to the Nizam, and people were required to work at starvation wages.

Laborers Working for Starvation Wages on the Nizam's Property, 1900
Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 4 IQBXbh

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 4 IQBXbh

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 4 A0EpVh

From P. Sundarayya's book on these peasants:

The income or loot from the peasantry, from the sarf-i-khas area, amounting to Rs. 20 million annually was entirely used to meet the expenditure of the Nizam's family and his retinue. The whole area was treated as his private estate. He was not bound to spend any amount for economic and social benefit or development of people's livelihood in that area... The peasants in these areas were nothing but bond-slaves or total serfs under the Nizam. Even whatever little rights existed in [other areas of the state] were denied to them.

The Nizam was indeed generous.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:45 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:it also explains why hyderabadi muslims are more communal than Lucknowi muslims to the extent that they have their own party which invariably always wins the muslim dominated assembly seats in hyderabad.
So, in your own thinking, having a separate party for Muslims that gets most Muslim votes is communal, right? Don't say yes in a hurry -- think about this carefully. Still think so? Well, guess who started this communal party of the Hyderabadi Muslims!

Wikipedia article on the Majlis party

It was founded and shaped by Nawab Mahmood Nawaz Khan Qiledar Golconda of Hyderabad State by the advice of Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan the Nizam of Hyderabad and in the presence of Ulma-e-Mashaeqeen in 1927 as a pro-Nizam party... The MIM advocated the set up of a Muslim dominion rather than integration with India.

Even in the 1920s, when the Nizam was playing the Good King act of Rashmun's drama, Good King-Bad King, he clearly wanted to splinter India on religious lines. Great king, Rashmun?

I condemn the formation of this party completely and unequivocally. On the other hand, i would like to have more evidence of the precise nature of this 'advice' of the Nizam for this party to be formed. It could be that this party is falsely claiming that it was formed on the basis of some 'advice' of the Nizam so as to gain legitimacy amongst Hyderabadi muslims.
More evidence has been provided. Now it is clear that the Nizam encouraged the formation of this communal party. Still great king, I hope!

the pucchapalli guy appears to be a hindu and possibly a nationalist opposed to nizam at the outset hence his writings are suspect. we only accept al buruni and german professors' writings as proof of something happened and the way it happened. also acceptable are historical events which are filtered through rashmunna's possibility analysis and psychological analysis of what a guy 100s of years ago might be thinking in his heart when he did something. please resubmit with proper credentials - puccha-something type guys not capable of impartial rendering of history.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:47 pm

charvaka wrote:Here are a few pictures that capture the Nizam's generous side.

About 10% of the territory of the state was the Nizam's personal property. On this property, all produce belonged to the Nizam, and people were required to work at starvation wages.

Laborers Working for Starvation Wages on the Nizam's Property, 1900

From P. Sundarayya's book on these peasants:

The income or loot from the peasantry, from the sarf-i-khas area, amounting to Rs. 20 million annually was entirely used to meet the expenditure of the Nizam's family and his retinue. The whole area was treated as his private estate. He was not bound to spend any amount for economic and social benefit or development of people's livelihood in that area... The peasants in these areas were nothing but bond-slaves or total serfs under the Nizam. Even whatever little rights existed in [other areas of the state] were denied to them.

The Nizam was indeed generous.

again with sundarayya. in the future, all ayyas, pallis, nenis, reddys and murthies are excluded from providing historical accounts as they're inherently biased and not capable.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:54 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:in my opinion it is a mistake to form a conclusive opinion about the Nizam based on one random wikipedia article when there are so many articles in respected publications claiming that he was secular. PP Method fails yet again!
My opinion of the Nizam is not based on one random Wikipedia article. Unlike you, I have spent a lot of time actually reading about what happened, before I formed any definitive opinions about any of the players.

Here are excerpts from three books written by a Telugu, a Maharashtrian and a northindian.

The Nizam encouraged the formation of the Majlis Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, in 1927, to bolster the support of the Muslim masses to his kingdom, on the plea that 'Muslims are the rulers'. In 1928, it adopted as one of its objects, 'to develop loyalty to the King and his Government'. They used to propagate the divine theory of kingship -- that the Nizam was 'the shadow of god', 'zill-ul-lah', etc... They were for "full authority" for the Nizam.
Telangana People's Struggle and its Lessons, by Pucchalapalli Sundarayya, http://books.google.com/books?id=_7ixVpS52z8C&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=nizam+majlis+ittehad&source=bl&ots=Jz0OwClpKZ&sig=Vq-zgmTdrQ8GmFrXgD17hi7gGdk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JAmXT8iwDKnC6AGD263LDg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=nizam%20majlis%20ittehad&f=false

The concerted efforts of the communal Majlis-i-Ittehad-ul Mussulman to raise the slogan of Anaal Malik (literally "I am the King") can be interpreted in this context (Reddy, 1973:9; Pavier, 1981:70). With the Nizam's blessings, the Ittehad (as it was popularly called) was engaged in a last ditch legitimation campaign but it was to be too little too late.
Revolutioin in Telangana: 1946-1951, by Akhil Gupta, http://www.etelangana.org/books/revolution_tg_1946-51.pdf

Mahmud Nawazkhan, a retired official of Hyderabad founded the Majlis-i-Ittehad-ul-Mussulmeen (known shortly as Ittehad) in 1926. Its objectives were to unite the Muslims in the State in support of Nizam and to reduce the Hindu majority by large scale conversion to Islam. Later on Bahadurkhan (later known as Bahadur Yar Jung) became the leader of Ittehad... Bahadur Yar Jung insisted that Hyderabad be declared a Muslim state.
Marathwada under the Nizams, by P.V. Kate, http://books.google.com/books?id=tjndiykddsIC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=nizam+majlis+ittehad&source=bl&ots=aI4DX_EwgL&sig=V-nfIpohNmvVAjXsOKKlTNeafys&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JAmXT8iwDKnC6AGD263LDg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nizam%20majlis%20ittehad&f=false

Incidentally, the title of Bahadar Yar Jung was conferred on Bahadur Khan by -- guess who! -- the Nizam. The Nizam was a big fan of this guy.

So, Rashmun, do you still condemn the formation of the Majlis at the encouragement of the Nizam?

I give below the link to an undergraduate thesis of a student studying at a reputed american college which states that:

1. the Majlis was originally a religious-cultural organization when it was founded (and endorsed by the Nizam) and only later it was transformed into a political organization.
2. In 1938 the Majlis changed its stance and its mission (effectively becoming communal) and began a program of religious conversion so as to try and change the minority status of muslims in the State of Hyderabad. When this happened, the Nizam revoked his endorsement of the Majlis.
3. In 1946, the Nizam banned the Majlis. The Majlis only re-emerged in 1957.

Do you agree with these facts in the thesis? If yes, do these facts compel you to change your opinion about the Nizam?

http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=etd_hon_theses&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dnizam%2520majlis%2520frontline%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D10%26ved%3D0CHwQFjAJ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwesscholar.wesleyan.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1112%2526context%253Detd_hon_theses%26ei%3DGQ-XT7mjLoOw2QXN5fDbDQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNEQvG6gp6W4dW2uUuV6mCh7_HClyw#search=%22nizam%20majlis%20frontline%22

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:57 pm

charvaka wrote:Here are a few pictures that capture the Nizam's generous side.

About 10% of the territory of the state was the Nizam's personal property. On this property, all produce belonged to the Nizam, and people were required to work at starvation wages.

Laborers Working for Starvation Wages on the Nizam's Property, 1900

From P. Sundarayya's book on these peasants:

The income or loot from the peasantry, from the sarf-i-khas area, amounting to Rs. 20 million annually was entirely used to meet the expenditure of the Nizam's family and his retinue. The whole area was treated as his private estate. He was not bound to spend any amount for economic and social benefit or development of people's livelihood in that area... The peasants in these areas were nothing but bond-slaves or total serfs under the Nizam. Even whatever little rights existed in [other areas of the state] were denied to them.

The Nizam was indeed generous.

it is a fact that not only the Nizam but also the hindu kings of the time were wealthy while the peasants were poor. But most of the wealth that was being looted from India was neither by the Nizam nor by the hindu kings but by the british. your blind hatred for the nizam means that you are unable to analyze this issue in a detached and rational manner.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:05 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Here are a few pictures that capture the Nizam's generous side.

About 10% of the territory of the state was the Nizam's personal property. On this property, all produce belonged to the Nizam, and people were required to work at starvation wages.

Laborers Working for Starvation Wages on the Nizam's Property, 1900

From P. Sundarayya's book on these peasants:

The income or loot from the peasantry, from the sarf-i-khas area, amounting to Rs. 20 million annually was entirely used to meet the expenditure of the Nizam's family and his retinue. The whole area was treated as his private estate. He was not bound to spend any amount for economic and social benefit or development of people's livelihood in that area... The peasants in these areas were nothing but bond-slaves or total serfs under the Nizam. Even whatever little rights existed in [other areas of the state] were denied to them.

The Nizam was indeed generous.

it is a fact that not only the Nizam but also the hindu kings of the time were wealthy while the peasants were poor. But most of the wealth that was being looted from India was neither by the Nizam nor by the hindu kings but by the british. your blind hatred for the nizam means that you are unable to analyze this issue in a detached and rational manner.

the blame for this lies not on the Nizam but on the british:

The Bengal famine of 1943 (Bengali: পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর) struck the Bengal province of pre-partition India. Estimates are that between 7 and 10 million people died of starvation, malnutrition and disease, out of Bengal’s 60.3 million population, half of them dying from disease after food became available in December 1943[1] As in previous Bengal famines,[2] the highest mortality was not in previously very poor groups, but among artisans and small traders whose income vanished when people spent all they had on food and did not employ cobblers, carpenters, etc.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:11 pm

Rashmun wrote:an undergraduate thesis

Hahaha. Undergraduate thesis. No, undergraduate thesis. No, wait. Undergraduate thesis.

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 4 APRD65

Rashmun wrote:3. In 1946, the Nizam banned the Majlis. The Majlis only re-emerged in 1957.

The Majlis was very much active as the Ittehad during 1946. Not only was it not banned, its private army the Razakars were supported by the Nizam's government. The Majlis was banned in 1948, after Sardar Patel's Police Action.

Wait, did your unequivocal condemnation of this party now suddenly change to prevarication and equivocation, now that the Nizam's role in its founding has been proven? Ah, the Rashmun Method!

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:14 pm

Rashmun wrote:it is a fact that not only the Nizam but also the hindu kings of the time were wealthy while the peasants were poor.

That excuse was invalidated yesterday, and you we unable to defend your excuse then. Instead you just repeat your tired, indefensible, old excuses for tyranny and exploitation.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:16 pm

Rashmun wrote:the blame for this lies not on the Nizam but on the british:

The Bengal famine of 1943 (Bengali: পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর) struck the Bengal province of pre-partition India. Estimates are that between 7 and 10 million people died of starvation, malnutrition and disease, out of Bengal’s 60.3 million population, half of them dying from disease after food became available in December 1943[1] As in previous Bengal famines,[2] the highest mortality was not in previously very poor groups, but among artisans and small traders whose income vanished when people spent all they had on food and did not employ cobblers, carpenters, etc.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

The blame for the Bengal famines belongs to the British, because they directly ruled Bengal and collected its taxes. The blame for the poverty and malnourishment of Telangana's people belongs to the Nizam, because he directly ruled Telanagana and collected its taxes. See the parallel there, or still blinded (or is it silenced) by your servility to tyranny?

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:21 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:an undergraduate thesis
Hahaha. Undergraduate thesis. No, undergraduate thesis. No, wait. Undergraduate thesis.

An undergraduate thesis which contained information which you were obviously ignorant of despite having read three books on this subject.

charvaka wrote:

PP Method!

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:3. In 1946, the Nizam banned the Majlis. The Majlis only re-emerged in 1957.
The Majlis was very much active as the Ittehad during 1946. Not only was it not banned, its private army the Razakars were supported by the Nizam's government. The Majlis was banned in 1948, after Sardar Patel's Police Action.

Wait, did your unequivocal condemnation of this party now suddenly change to prevarication and equivocation, now that the Nizam's role in its founding has been proven? Ah, the Rashmun Method!

Do you agree or disagree with the fact that:
1. Nizam officially banned the Majis in 1946.
2. Nizam revoked his endorsement of the Majlis after 1938 when the Majlis became communal and started trying to convert non-muslims to Islam. Does the fact that he revoked his endorsement of the Majlis mean nothing to you?

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:23 pm

Rashmun wrote:1. Nizam officially banned the Majis in 1946.

He did not ban the Majlis in 1946. The Ittehad was very much in existence through the Police Action.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:24 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the blame for this lies not on the Nizam but on the british:

The Bengal famine of 1943 (Bengali: পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর) struck the Bengal province of pre-partition India. Estimates are that between 7 and 10 million people died of starvation, malnutrition and disease, out of Bengal’s 60.3 million population, half of them dying from disease after food became available in December 1943[1] As in previous Bengal famines,[2] the highest mortality was not in previously very poor groups, but among artisans and small traders whose income vanished when people spent all they had on food and did not employ cobblers, carpenters, etc.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
The blame for the Bengal famines belongs to the British, because they directly ruled Bengal and collected its taxes. The blame for the poverty and malnourishment of Telangana's people belongs to the Nizam, because he directly ruled Telanagana and collected its taxes. See the parallel there, or still blinded (or is it silenced) by your servility to tyranny?

The poverty and malnourishment of peasants was not confined to Telangana; it was all over India. It is not as if peasants of Bengal, for example, were having a jolly good time--in fact they were worse off than the peasants in Telangana. Telangana never experienced anything like the Bengal famine of 1943 where millions of peasants died.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:27 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:1. Nizam officially banned the Majis in 1946.
He did not ban the Majlis in 1946. The Ittehad was very much in existence through the Police Action.

Why did the Majlis feel obliged to take another name? is it because they felt obliged to start using a different name after the Nizam banned them in 1946?

Moreover, why are you silent on the fact that the Nizam revoked his endorsement for the Majlis after 1938? Is it because you are biased and prejudiced against the Nizam?

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:an undergraduate thesis
Hahaha. Undergraduate thesis. No, undergraduate thesis. No, wait. Undergraduate thesis.

An undergraduate thesis which contained information which you were obviously ignorant of despite having read three books on this subject.

I know you desperately want to prove that you were right all along about the Nizam. You picked the wrong horse this time; if you had any friends left, they would have advised you to give it up already. The Nizam encouraged the formation of one of India's most communal parties, the Majlis Ittehad-ul-Mussalmeen. He was as communal as they came back in the day. He was not secular; he favored people like Bahadur Yar Jung who was a big advocate of Pakistan. He appointed Mir Laik Ali, an Ittehad leader, as his prime minister. He repeatedly and consistently favored Pakistan over India: smuggling Pakistani weapons into Hyderabad, giving money that prevented Pakistan from going bankrupt when it was fighting a war against India, sending taxpayer money over to Pakistan in a last-ditch to rob India.

Your choice is to give up on this Nizam who was communal, or to keep making more and more incredulous statements and be exposed as an obstinate buffoon. You are not going to silence me on this matter with repeated copy-pastes (or by casting aspersions on my family). This is a topic I care about, and I have facts on my side. So keep going.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:39 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:an undergraduate thesis
Hahaha. Undergraduate thesis. No, undergraduate thesis. No, wait. Undergraduate thesis.

An undergraduate thesis which contained information which you were obviously ignorant of despite having read three books on this subject.
I know you desperately want to prove that you were right all along about the Nizam. You picked the wrong horse this time; if you had any friends left, they would have advised you to give it up already. The Nizam encouraged the formation of one of India's most communal parties, the Majlis Ittehad-ul-Mussalmeen. He was as communal as they came back in the day. He was not secular; he favored people like Bahadur Yar Jung who was a big advocate of Pakistan. He appointed Mir Laik Ali, an Ittehad leader, as his prime minister. He repeatedly and consistently favored Pakistan over India: smuggling Pakistani weapons into Hyderabad, giving money that prevented Pakistan from going bankrupt when it was fighting a war against India, sending taxpayer money over to Pakistan in a last-ditch to rob India.

Your choice is to give up on this Nizam who was communal, or to keep making more and more incredulous statements and be exposed as an obstinate buffoon. You are not going to silence me on this matter with repeated copy-pastes (or by casting aspersions on my family). This is a topic I care about, and I have facts on my side. So keep going.

Charvaka, it is very clear who has been exposed to be the obstinate buffoon. The Nizam did endorse the Majlis in 1927, when it was a religious-cultural organization, but he withdrew his endorsement for the Majlis after the Majlis turned communal in 1938. In 1946, the Nizam banned the Majlis.

Further details about how effective the ban on the Majlis was, whether the Majlis re-invented itself under another name, and so forth can be studied further. But it is hypocritical on your part to shy away from the fact that the Nizam withdrew his endorsement for the Majlis in 1938 after the Majlis turned communal.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:1. Nizam officially banned the Majis in 1946.
He did not ban the Majlis in 1946. The Ittehad was very much in existence through the Police Action.

Why did the Majlis feel obliged to take another name? is it because they felt obliged to start using a different name after the Nizam banned them in 1946?

This is the problem with arguing from a position of ignorance. The Majlis Ittehad-ul-Mussulmeen was known in its early days as the Ittehad. Proof of this: read the third extract in this post carefully: "Mahmud Nawazkhan, a retired official of Hyderabad founded the Majlis-i-Ittehad-ul-Mussulmeen (known shortly as Ittehad) in 1926." Not only do you not know the relevant history, but you don't even read the information that has already been given to you. This is the problem with trying to argue from a preconceived notion instead of relying on facts.

After the Police Action, India banned the Ittehad and its Razakars. In 1957, the party was revived and they decided to emphasize the first word of the name rather than the second, in order to not refer to the bad old days under the Nizam.

Rashmun wrote:why are you silent on the fact that the Nizam revoked his endorsement for the Majlis after 1938?

Because this undergraduate -- hahaha! -- thesis -- excuse me, hahaha! -- is wrong on something so basic as to suggest that the Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946.

Far from revoking his endorsement of the Ittehad, as late as 1947, the Nizam appointed an Ittehad leader as prime minister -- Mir Laik Ali. Ali's book mentioned the Nizam's support of the Ittehad, and I don't recall him mentioning any kind of revocation of that endorsement. What happened in 1937-'38 was an administrative reform that was mooted by the Nizam. Congress opposed it as too little, while the Ittehad opposed it as going too far. The Ittehad did not want any kind of constitutional limits to the Nizam's authority; it wanted absolute autocratic rule by the Nizam, as they feared a "slippery slope" towards democracy. The Nizam used the Ittehad's opposition as a ruse to not implement even the minor reforms that were proposed. I can confirm this in a day or two once I dig up my copy of Ali's book.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:46 pm

rashmun -- i think you should stop wasting time on this and return to the language threads. your are more entertaining there.

by Sponsored content