Re: Nizam's generous side and love for books

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:56 pm

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

One thing the Nizam was better at than Rashmun: recognize it when the battle is lost, and move on to more-promising endeavors.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:10 pm

rashmun: ask m.iyengar to read this and translate for you:

குப்புற விழுந்தாலும் மீசையில் மண் ஒட்டவில்லை.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:12 pm

Rashmun wrote: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

This thesis -- hahaha! -- gets quite a few facts wrong (e.g. the Ittehad was very much operational in and after 1946). But -- surprise, surprise! -- even this thesis does not support your interpretation!

In the 1920’s, ... the Arya Samaj and Majlis-e-Ittehud-ul-Musalmeen proposed national ideologies rooted in communal identities.

Although the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen (the Council of the Union of Muslims) was founded as a cultural-religious organization in 1927, within a few years the organization entered politics. The party soon became the primary Muslim political party in Hyderabad, with a belief that Hyderabad Muslims were the hakim kaum, or ruling race. In 1930, the Majlis elected Bahadur Yar Jung as the new president. Bahadur Jung held the view that Muslims must maintain power and used his renowned orating skills to rouse the Muslim population.

So if your Nizam Good-King ul-Mulk supported the Ittehad between 1927 and 1938, he was communal for at least 8 of those 11 years.

PS: Somebody please create an emoticon for own goal.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:18 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote: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

This thesis -- hahaha! -- gets quite a few facts wrong (e.g. the Ittehad was very much operational in and after 1946). But -- surprise, surprise! -- even this thesis does not support your interpretation!

In the 1920’s, ... the Arya Samaj and Majlis-e-Ittehud-ul-Musalmeen proposed national ideologies rooted in communal identities.

Although the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen (the Council of the Union of Muslims) was founded as a cultural-religious organization in 1927, within a few years the organization entered politics. The party soon became the primary Muslim political party in Hyderabad, with a belief that Hyderabad Muslims were the hakim kaum, or ruling race. In 1930, the Majlis elected Bahadur Yar Jung as the new president. Bahadur Jung held the view that Muslims must maintain power and used his renowned orating skills to rouse the Muslim population.

So if your Nizam Good-King ul-Mulk supported the Ittehad between 1927 and 1938, he was communal for at least 8 of those 11 years.

PS: Somebody please create an emoticon for own goal.

The thesis also states the following:

In spite of knowing that Hyderabad state was 87 per cent Hindu, Bahadur Yar
Jung still believed that the state should remain Muslim. In 1938, the mission of the
Majlis became Ani’l malik (I am the ruler). This expressed the belief that every
individual Muslim held a vested interest in the state’s sovereignty. Soon afterward,
Jung headed a defensive program of conversion, hoping to change the minority status
of Muslims in Hyderabad state. Over the years, Jung is credited with the conversion
of 24,000 Hindus.20 The Nizam reacted to the party’s new radical stance by officially
revoking his previous endorsement...
The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957, under the auspices of a new leader.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:21 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote: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

This thesis -- hahaha! -- gets quite a few facts wrong (e.g. the Ittehad was very much operational in and after 1946). But -- surprise, surprise! -- even this thesis does not support your interpretation!

In the 1920’s, ... the Arya Samaj and Majlis-e-Ittehud-ul-Musalmeen proposed national ideologies rooted in communal identities.

Although the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen (the Council of the Union of Muslims) was founded as a cultural-religious organization in 1927, within a few years the organization entered politics. The party soon became the primary Muslim political party in Hyderabad, with a belief that Hyderabad Muslims were the hakim kaum, or ruling race. In 1930, the Majlis elected Bahadur Yar Jung as the new president. Bahadur Jung held the view that Muslims must maintain power and used his renowned orating skills to rouse the Muslim population.

So if your Nizam Good-King ul-Mulk supported the Ittehad between 1927 and 1938, he was communal for at least 8 of those 11 years.

PS: Somebody please create an emoticon for own goal.

The thesis also states the following:

In spite of knowing that Hyderabad state was 87 per cent Hindu, Bahadur Yar
Jung still believed that the state should remain Muslim. In 1938, the mission of the
Majlis became Ani’l malik (I am the ruler). This expressed the belief that every
individual Muslim held a vested interest in the state’s sovereignty. Soon afterward,
Jung headed a defensive program of conversion, hoping to change the minority status
of Muslims in Hyderabad state. Over the years, Jung is credited with the conversion
of 24,000 Hindus.20 The Nizam reacted to the party’s new radical stance by officially
revoking his previous endorsement...
The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957, under the auspices of a new leader.

it is true that this is an undergraduate thesis, but it is a very well researched undergraduate thesis as is clear when one reads the following extract from the thesis:

Last summer, thanks to a generous grant by the Freeman Asian-American
Association, I spent in Hyderabad researching for my thesis. I arrived in Hyderabad
on June 1st, only twelve days after a bombing at Mecca Masjid. When I arrived, the
city was on curfew, the entire Old City closed down and communal tensions high.
Mecca Masjid sits in the center of the Old City and the government and media feared
riots paralleling the 1990 riots. For the majority of the fourth chapter, I use a
compilation of interviews conducted by a research term at the Confederation of
Voluntary Associations in Hyderabad. Because of the tense situation, for the first two
weeks of my stay I was encouraged to stay on the ‘New City’ side and not to travel to
the Old City, where I had planned on conducting most of my research. Also, because
communal tensions were high, I was encouraged not to personally conduct interviews
about Hindu Muslim relations.

As the weeks passed, the situation eased and storefronts began to open. I resumed
with my plan and made my way to the COVA office, a stone’s throw from the Mecca
Masjid. I collected many unpublished documents from COVA on Muslim
populations in Andhra Pradesh. The most valuable document for my thesis was a
collection of interviews after the 1990 riots asking both Hindus and Muslims in the
Old City why they thought communal conflict still existed in Hyderabad. Sixteen
people were interviews, all long-time residents of the Old City—seven Hindu and
nine Muslim. The interviewees were selected on the basis of: a) being a resident of
the Old City living in mixed localities with a history of communal tension and b)
being involved in some kind of community work. I unfortunately do not have the
specific dates for the interviews. There are over eighty pages of interviews and write
up, here I will summarize the interviews. These interviews proved invaluable for my
understanding of what specific events still affect the minds of people in the Old City
and provided a picture of social interaction in the Old City before Police Action that I
otherwise would not have understood as well. The seven interviewees that I use in
this thesis are named below. I use these because of the length and depth of their
interviews. Throughout my thesis, I cite the interviews and write up as COVA.

COVA, Communal Conflict and Peace Initiatives in Hyderabad Deccan: Part-II,
Present Scenario.

COVA, Communal Conflict and Peace Initiatives in Hyderabad Deccan: Part-
Annexure 1.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:24 pm

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

This thesis -- hahaha! -- gets quite a few facts wrong (e.g. the Ittehad was very much operational in and after 1946). But -- surprise, surprise! -- even this thesis does not support your interpretation!

In the 1920’s, ... the Arya Samaj and Majlis-e-Ittehud-ul-Musalmeen proposed national ideologies rooted in communal identities.

Although the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen (the Council of the Union of Muslims) was founded as a cultural-religious organization in 1927, within a few years the organization entered politics. The party soon became the primary Muslim political party in Hyderabad, with a belief that Hyderabad Muslims were the hakim kaum, or ruling race. In 1930, the Majlis elected Bahadur Yar Jung as the new president. Bahadur Jung held the view that Muslims must maintain power and used his renowned orating skills to rouse the Muslim population.

So if your Nizam Good-King ul-Mulk supported the Ittehad between 1927 and 1938, he was communal for at least 8 of those 11 years.

PS: Somebody please create an emoticon for own goal.

The thesis also states the following:

In spite of knowing that Hyderabad state was 87 per cent Hindu, Bahadur Yar
Jung still believed that the state should remain Muslim. In 1938, the mission of the
Majlis became Ani’l malik (I am the ruler). This expressed the belief that every
individual Muslim held a vested interest in the state’s sovereignty. Soon afterward,
Jung headed a defensive program of conversion, hoping to change the minority status
of Muslims in Hyderabad state. Over the years, Jung is credited with the conversion
of 24,000 Hindus.20 The Nizam reacted to the party’s new radical stance by officially
revoking his previous endorsement...
The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957, under the auspices of a new leader.

it is true that this is an undergraduate thesis, but it is a very well researched undergraduate thesis as is clear when one reads the following extract from the thesis:

Last summer, thanks to a generous grant by the Freeman Asian-American
Association, I spent in Hyderabad researching for my thesis. I arrived in Hyderabad
on June 1st, only twelve days after a bombing at Mecca Masjid. When I arrived, the
city was on curfew, the entire Old City closed down and communal tensions high.
Mecca Masjid sits in the center of the Old City and the government and media feared
riots paralleling the 1990 riots. For the majority of the fourth chapter, I use a
compilation of interviews conducted by a research term at the Confederation of
Voluntary Associations in Hyderabad. Because of the tense situation, for the first two
weeks of my stay I was encouraged to stay on the ‘New City’ side and not to travel to
the Old City, where I had planned on conducting most of my research. Also, because
communal tensions were high, I was encouraged not to personally conduct interviews
about Hindu Muslim relations.

As the weeks passed, the situation eased and storefronts began to open. I resumed
with my plan and made my way to the COVA office, a stone’s throw from the Mecca
Masjid. I collected many unpublished documents from COVA on Muslim
populations in Andhra Pradesh. The most valuable document for my thesis was a
collection of interviews after the 1990 riots asking both Hindus and Muslims in the
Old City why they thought communal conflict still existed in Hyderabad. Sixteen
people were interviews, all long-time residents of the Old City—seven Hindu and
nine Muslim. The interviewees were selected on the basis of: a) being a resident of
the Old City living in mixed localities with a history of communal tension and b)
being involved in some kind of community work. I unfortunately do not have the
specific dates for the interviews. There are over eighty pages of interviews and write
up, here I will summarize the interviews. These interviews proved invaluable for my
understanding of what specific events still affect the minds of people in the Old City
and provided a picture of social interaction in the Old City before Police Action that I
otherwise would not have understood as well. The seven interviewees that I use in
this thesis are named below. I use these because of the length and depth of their
interviews. Throughout my thesis, I cite the interviews and write up as COVA.

COVA, Communal Conflict and Peace Initiatives in Hyderabad Deccan: Part-II,
Present Scenario.

COVA, Communal Conflict and Peace Initiatives in Hyderabad Deccan: Part-
Annexure 1.

WORKS CITED

“Andhra Pradesh: Hyderabadi humour rocks for Nikkil.” The Hindu 7 Dec. 2005.
“Hyderabad Remains Aloof.” The New York Times 14 Aug. 1947.
“India.” CIA: The World Factbook, 20 March 2008. 4 February 2008

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html.
“Its Only Money.” Time Magazine 24 Mar. 1952.
“Silver Jubilee Durbar.” Time Magazine 22 Feb. 1937.
Akbar, M.J. Riot after Riot: Reports on Caste and Communal Violence in India. New

Delhi: Penguin Book India, 1988.
Ali, Syed. “Re-membering Selves: From Nobility and Caste to Ethnicity and Class in

an Indian City.” Diss. University of Virginia, 2001.
Das, Ashok. “4% Reservations for ‘backward Muslims’ in Andhra.” Hindustan Times

4 Jul. 2007.
Bayly, C.A.. Origins of Nationality in South Asia: Patriotism and Ethical

Government in the Making of Modern India. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1998.
Benichou, Lucien. From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in

Hyderabad State (1938-1948). Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2000.
Chandra, Bipan, et al. India’s Struggle for Independence 1857-1947. New Delhi:

Penguin Books, 1987.
Darsgah Jihad-o-Shahadath. SAASONS 2005, 7 Feb. 2008 www.djsindia.org.

99

Das Gupta, Jyotirindra. Language Conflict and National Development: Group
Politics and National Language Policy in India. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1970.

Deshpande, Satish. “Hegemonic Spatial Strategies: The Nation-Space and Hindu
Communalism in Twentieth-century India.” In Partha Chaterjee, Pradeep
Jaganathan (ed). Community, Gender and Violence. New York: Columbia
University Press, 2000.

Flueckiger, Joyce Burkhalter. In Amma’s Healing Room: Gender and Vernacular
Islam in South India. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University
Press, 2006.

Gottschalk, Peter. Beyond Hindu and Muslim: Multiple Identity in Narratives from
Village India. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Hasan, Mushirul. Inventing Boundaries: Gender, Politics, and the Partition of India.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000.

---.Legacy of a Divided Nation: India’s Muslims Since Independence. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 1997.

Hasan, Zoya and Ritu Menon. Education Muslim Girls: A Comparison of Five
Indian Cities. New Delhi: Women Unlimited, 2005.

Hazarika, Sanjoy. “Muslim-Hindu Riots in India leave 93 Dead in 3 Days.” The New
York Times 10 December 1990.

Henson, Harlan Neil. Elites, Language Policy, and Political Integration in
Hyderabad. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, 1974.

100

Hyder, Syed Akbar. “Urdu’s Progressive Wit: Sulaiman Khatib, Sarvar “Danda” and
The Subaltern Satirists Who Spoke Up.” The Annual of Urdu Studies, Vol.
20, 2005.

Jain, M.S.. Muslim Political Identity. Jaipur and New Delhi: Rawat Publications,
2005.

Jeffrey, Robin (ed). People, Princes and Paramout Power. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1978.

Jones, Kenneth W. “Communalism in the Punab: The Arya Samaj Contribution.”
The Journal of Asian Studies, 28, 1968.

Joseph, John. E. Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. New York:
Palgrace Macmillan, 2004.

Kakar, Sudhir. The Colors of Violence: Cultural Identities, Religion and Conflict.
Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

---Kakar, Sudhir. “The time of Kali: Violence between Religious Groups in India.”
Social Research Fall 2000.

Kumar, Nita. Friends, Brothers, and Informants: Fieldwork Memoirs of Banaras.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.

"Language, Legitimation, and the Identity Status of Urdu and Muslims." In:
Redefining Urdu Politics in India, (ed). Ather Farouqui. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2006.

Leonard, Karen. Locating Home: Indias Hyderabadis Abroad. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2007.

101

---Leonard, Karen. “Hyderabad, the Mulki-Non-Mulki Conflict” in R. Jeffrey (ed).
People, Princes and Paramount Power. Oxford University Press: Delhi,
1978.

Luther, Narendra. Hyderabad: A Biography. New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
2006.

Mehta, Suketu. Maximum City: Bombay Lost & Found. New Delhi: Penguin Books,
2004.

Matthews, Herbert L. “Princely Sates Pose Another India Problem: End of British
Rule Forces 562 Rulers to Face Question of Future Status.” The New York
Times 22 June 1947.

Munshi, K.M. The End of an Era: Hyderabad Memories. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya
Bhavan, 1957.

Naidu, Ratna. Old Cities, New Predicaments: A Study of Hyderabad. New Delhi:
Sage Publications, 1990.

Nair, Meera. “Lives: A Show of Faith.” The New York Times Magazine 28 April
2002.

Noorani, A.G. (ed). The Muslims of India: A Documentary Record. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 2003.

Nussbaum, Martha C. The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India’s
Future. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, 2007.

102

O’Toole, Therese. “Secularising the Sacred Cow: The Relationship between
Religious Reform and Hindu Nationalism” in Anthony Copley (ed.),
Hinduism in Public and Private. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Parekh, Bhikhu. “Discourses on National Identity.” In Bidyut Chakrabarty (ed.)

Communal Identity in India: Its Construction and Articulation in the

Twentieth Century. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Pernau, Margrit. The Passing of Patrimonialism: Politics and Political Culture in

Hyderabad 1911-1948. New Delhi: Manohar, 2000.
Pinault, David. The Shiites: Ritual and Popular Piety in a Muslim Community. New

York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992.
Praveen Swami. “Roots in History.” Frontline Magazine 8-21 Sept. 2007.
Rao, P.Raghunadha. History of Modern Andhra. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers

Private Limited, 1997.
Sen, Amartya. The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian Culture, History and

Identity. London: Penguin Books, 2005.
Sikand, Yoginder. Muslims in India Since 1957: Islamic perspectives on inter-faith

relations. London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2004.
Tirtha, Swami Ramananda. Memoirs of Hyderabad Freedom Struggle. Bombay:

Popular Prakashan, 1967.
Trumbull, Robert. “India Sets up State on Language Basis.” The New York Times 26

Mar. 1953.
Van der Veer, Peter. Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India. Berkeley

and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994.

103

Varshney, Ashutosh. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Welch, Claude Emerson. Anatomy of Rebellion. Albany: SUNY Press, 1980.
Wilkinson, Steven I. (ed). Religious Politics and Communal Violence. Oxford; New

York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

----

Interviewees:

M.T. Khan: Muslim, unknown occupation.
M.A. Raoof: Muslim, Co-Founder and Secretary of the Democrats

Association
Husseini Jehander Afsar: Muslim, member of League of Democratic Youth

(LDY) in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
105

Vijay Singh: Hindu, baker
Youth: unnamed Muslim youth, student (former dropout)
Govind Singh: Hindu, joint commissioner of Police
Gopal Mukim: Hindu, Retired DSP

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:33 pm

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote: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

This thesis -- hahaha! -- gets quite a few facts wrong (e.g. the Ittehad was very much operational in and after 1946). But -- surprise, surprise! -- even this thesis does not support your interpretation!

In the 1920’s, ... the Arya Samaj and Majlis-e-Ittehud-ul-Musalmeen proposed national ideologies rooted in communal identities.

Although the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen (the Council of the Union of Muslims) was founded as a cultural-religious organization in 1927, within a few years the organization entered politics. The party soon became the primary Muslim political party in Hyderabad, with a belief that Hyderabad Muslims were the hakim kaum, or ruling race. In 1930, the Majlis elected Bahadur Yar Jung as the new president. Bahadur Jung held the view that Muslims must maintain power and used his renowned orating skills to rouse the Muslim population.

So if your Nizam Good-King ul-Mulk supported the Ittehad between 1927 and 1938, he was communal for at least 8 of those 11 years.

PS: Somebody please create an emoticon for own goal.

The thesis also states the following:

In spite of knowing that Hyderabad state was 87 per cent Hindu, Bahadur Yar
Jung still believed that the state should remain Muslim. In 1938, the mission of the
Majlis became Ani’l malik (I am the ruler). This expressed the belief that every
individual Muslim held a vested interest in the state’s sovereignty. Soon afterward,
Jung headed a defensive program of conversion, hoping to change the minority status
of Muslims in Hyderabad state. Over the years, Jung is credited with the conversion
of 24,000 Hindus.20 The Nizam reacted to the party’s new radical stance by officially
revoking his previous endorsement...
The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957, under the auspices of a new leader.

The party was communal to begin with, as the thesis clearly acknowledges. It only got more communal in 1938. The Nizam may have publicly distanced himself from the party then, but in private, he wrote a letter to the highly communal Bahadur Yar Jung assuring him that all his demands will be met. This shows that the Nizam was communal himself.

Nizam sent a confidential note of assurances to Ittehad on 4th October 1939. This document was kept as a secret document till 13th July 1946 when it was published by the President of Ittehad.

The secret documents are as follows:

With reference to the representation made by the Anjuman-e-Ittehadul Musalmeen, on behalf of the Muslim community, the Council [the Ittehad] had made two recommendations... Therefore the Muslim community of Hyderabad is assured that when practical measures shall be taken in furtherance to the Reforms at its proper time, due effect will be given to the above named resolutions. By Order of H.E.H., I hand over this confidential Note to Bahadur Yar Jung who is the leader of the Anjuman-e-Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen.

This [secret] assurance in the words of Nawab Ali Yaver Jung "was a gross betrayal of trust. That was why it was kept secret. The Ittehad thus won in the very first round."
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

The Ittehad was very much active between 1946 and 1948. The claim that it was banned in 1946 is a mistake, plain and simple. We all know that people were making lots of mistakes in the 1940s, and the thesis writer made one such mistake about the date the Majlis was banned. It was actually banned in 1948. Wikipedia confirms:

After the integration of the Hyderabad state with India, the MIM was banned in 1948 -1957.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:44 pm

charvaka wrote:

PP Method!

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:58 pm

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

This thesis -- hahaha! -- gets quite a few facts wrong (e.g. the Ittehad was very much operational in and after 1946). But -- surprise, surprise! -- even this thesis does not support your interpretation!

In the 1920’s, ... the Arya Samaj and Majlis-e-Ittehud-ul-Musalmeen proposed national ideologies rooted in communal identities.

Although the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen (the Council of the Union of Muslims) was founded as a cultural-religious organization in 1927, within a few years the organization entered politics. The party soon became the primary Muslim political party in Hyderabad, with a belief that Hyderabad Muslims were the hakim kaum, or ruling race. In 1930, the Majlis elected Bahadur Yar Jung as the new president. Bahadur Jung held the view that Muslims must maintain power and used his renowned orating skills to rouse the Muslim population.

So if your Nizam Good-King ul-Mulk supported the Ittehad between 1927 and 1938, he was communal for at least 8 of those 11 years.

PS: Somebody please create an emoticon for own goal.

The thesis also states the following:

In spite of knowing that Hyderabad state was 87 per cent Hindu, Bahadur Yar
Jung still believed that the state should remain Muslim. In 1938, the mission of the
Majlis became Ani’l malik (I am the ruler). This expressed the belief that every
individual Muslim held a vested interest in the state’s sovereignty. Soon afterward,
Jung headed a defensive program of conversion, hoping to change the minority status
of Muslims in Hyderabad state. Over the years, Jung is credited with the conversion
of 24,000 Hindus.20 The Nizam reacted to the party’s new radical stance by officially
revoking his previous endorsement...
The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957, under the auspices of a new leader.
The party was communal to begin with, as the thesis clearly acknowledges. It only got more communal in 1938. The Nizam may have publicly distanced himself from the party then, but in private, he wrote a letter to the highly communal Bahadur Yar Jung assuring him that all his demands will be met. This shows that the Nizam was communal himself.

Nizam sent a confidential note of assurances to Ittehad on 4th October 1939. This document was kept as a secret document till 13th July 1946 when it was published by the President of Ittehad.

The secret documents are as follows:

With reference to the representation made by the Anjuman-e-Ittehadul Musalmeen, on behalf of the Muslim community, the Council [the Ittehad] had made two recommendations... Therefore the Muslim community of Hyderabad is assured that when practical measures shall be taken in furtherance to the Reforms at its proper time, due effect will be given to the above named resolutions. By Order of H.E.H., I hand over this confidential Note to Bahadur Yar Jung who is the leader of the Anjuman-e-Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen.

This [secret] assurance in the words of Nawab Ali Yaver Jung "was a gross betrayal of trust. That was why it was kept secret. The Ittehad thus won in the very first round."
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

The Ittehad was very much active between 1946 and 1948. The claim that it was banned in 1946 is a mistake, plain and simple. We all know that people were making lots of mistakes in the 1940s, and the thesis writer made one such mistake about the date the Majlis was banned. It was actually banned in 1948. Wikipedia confirms:

After the integration of the Hyderabad state with India, the MIM was banned in 1948 -1957.

i glanced over this book and it came across as very superficial, and completely hostile to the Nizam. Essentially, it seems to have been written by someone who is personally communal who has no sympathy whatsoever with the muslims of hyderabad. the undergraduate thesis is a lot more balanced and adopts a more nuanced approach than this biased and prejudiced book. With respect to this so called 'secret document' one cannot rule out the possibility that it was a case of a forgery and that the president of the extremist party in fact produced a forged letter.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:06 pm

Rashmun wrote:i glanced over this book and it came across as very superficial, and completely hostile to the Nizam. Essentially, it seems to have been written by someone who is personally communal who has no sympathy whatsoever with the muslims of hyderabad. the undergraduate thesis is a lot more balanced and adopts a more nuanced approach than this biased and prejudiced book. With respect to this so called 'secret document' one cannot rule out the possibility that it was a case of a forgery and that the president of the extremist party in fact produced a forged letter.

Keep inventing excuses for the despotic, deceitful traitor and his private army of murderers. Keep clutching at straws to find any fragmentary proof of what you want to believe.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:11 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i glanced over this book and it came across as very superficial, and completely hostile to the Nizam. Essentially, it seems to have been written by someone who is personally communal who has no sympathy whatsoever with the muslims of hyderabad. the undergraduate thesis is a lot more balanced and adopts a more nuanced approach than this biased and prejudiced book. With respect to this so called 'secret document' one cannot rule out the possibility that it was a case of a forgery and that the president of the extremist party in fact produced a forged letter.
Keep inventing excuses for the despotic, deceitful traitor and his private army of murderers. Keep clutching at straws to find any fragmentary proof of what you want to believe.

i am only pointing out a possibility. also, i am not denying that he lost his head during the 1940s because he was keen to retain power. towards this end he may have been egged on and misguided by his advisors and possibly the british.

on the other hand, he was probably better than many of the other kings in India at that time. He seems to have done genuine work for his state. For instance, constructing the Nizamsagar which even today supplies drinking water to Hyderabad and Secunderabad.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:32 pm

From the chapter called Conclusion in Lucien Benichou's book From Autocracy to Integration (page 250):

But despite the Nizam's idiosyncracies, his regime could have retained broad popularity with the masses had the Ruler's political behaviour not departed from the communal impartiality which had been the traditional stand of his ancestors.

In times of crisis, as in 1938-39 ... it was very apparent that he was quite openly sympathetic to the Ittihad-ul-Muslimeen.

Sorry Rashmun. Your hero the Nizam was communal. He supported the communal Ittehad in the '20s, in the '30s and in the '40s.

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:52 pm

charvaka wrote:From the chapter called Conclusion in Lucien Benichou's book From Autocracy to Integration (page 250):

But despite the Nizam's idiosyncracies, his regime could have retained broad popularity with the masses had the Ruler's political behaviour not departed from the communal impartiality which had been the traditional stand of his ancestors.

In times of crisis, as in 1938-39 ... it was very apparent that he was quite openly sympathetic to the Ittihad-ul-Muslimeen.

Sorry Rashmun. Your hero the Nizam was communal. He supported the communal Ittehad in the '20s, in the '30s and in the '40s.

i have clarified that the Nizam is not my hero (although he certainly seems to be the hero of many Hyderabadis even today as per the articles i have given in this thread). I only view to wish him impartially in a detached manner befitting a student of history. As the great Kashmiri historian Kalhana wrote:

That noble-minded poet alone merits praise whose word, like the sentence of a judge, keeps free from love or hatred in recording the past.

----
I have based my assessment on the Nizam's relationship with the Majlis on what looks to be a well researched undergraduate thesis and i am prepared to change my opinion about the Nizam if the facts given in this thesis are wrong. I give below the relevant extract from this thesis:

In spite of knowing that Hyderabad state was 87 per cent Hindu, Bahadur Yar
Jung still believed that the state should remain Muslim. In 1938, the mission of the
Majlis became Ani’l malik (I am the ruler). This expressed the belief that every
individual Muslim held a vested interest in the state’s sovereignty. Soon afterward,
Jung headed a defensive program of conversion, hoping to change the minority status
of Muslims in Hyderabad state. Over the years, Jung is credited with the conversion
of 24,000 Hindus.The Nizam reacted to the party’s new radical stance by officially
revoking his previous endorsement...The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957, under the auspices of a new leader.

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:I have based my assessment on the Nizam's relationship with the Majlis on what looks to be a well researched undergraduate thesis and i am prepared to change my opinion about the Nizam if the facts given in this thesis are wrong.

The Nizam reacted to the party’s new radical stance by officially revoking his previous endorsement...The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957, under the auspices of a new leader.

They are wrong. The Ittehad was banned in 1948 after Police Action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIMIM#Banned), not in 1946 as mistakenly footnoted in the thesis. As for revoking his endorsement, Benichou makes it clear that "it was very apparent that he was quite openly sympathetic to the Ittihad-ul-Muslimeen."

by Guest Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:09 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I have based my assessment on the Nizam's relationship with the Majlis on what looks to be a well researched undergraduate thesis and i am prepared to change my opinion about the Nizam if the facts given in this thesis are wrong.

The Nizam reacted to the party’s new radical stance by officially revoking his previous endorsement...The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957, under the auspices of a new leader.
They are wrong. The Ittehad was banned in 1948 after Police Action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIMIM#Banned), not in 1946 as mistakenly footnoted in the thesis. As for revoking his endorsement, Benichou makes it clear that "it was very apparent that he was quite openly sympathetic to the Ittihad-ul-Muslimeen."

a wikipedia article can help us in forming a tentative view but it certainly cannot be the final word on any historical issue particularly a controversial issue. Secondly, Benichou's statement is very vague. He ought to give the reader specific instances of this 'open sympathy' to make his point along with the timeline. (Perhaps he does do this in his book.) The timeline is important. The Nizam apparently lost his head in the 1940s, and made many serious mistakes, because of the hope of clinging on to power and we have to take that into account when assessing him.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:36 pm

Rashmun wrote: The Nizam apparently lost his head in the 1940s, and made many serious mistakes, because of the hope of clinging on to power and we have to take that into account when assessing him.

this thread might have also been titled equally aptly as "rashmun's obdurate side and his love for kooks" in that case.

is there a parallel here with you losing your head now and then and making many serious mistakes, like your most recent obsessive and racist threads about telugus?

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:41 pm

Here is clear evidence that the Nizam did not ban the Ittehad in 1946 as the footnote wrongly states.

V.P. Menon states in his book The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (pages 235-236):

Accordingly, on 23 March [1948], I addressed a letter to the President of the Nizam's Executive Council which was sent to [KM] Munshi to be delivered personally to [Mir] Laik Ali...

[The letter includes the following words:]
[The Government of India] consider that in the interests of peace inside the State and on both sides of the border the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen should be banned and its organizations wound up.

If the Nizam had already banned the Ittehad in 1946, why was the Government of India writing to the Nizam's premier asking him to ban it in 1948?

by charvaka Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:42 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote: The Nizam apparently lost his head in the 1940s, and made many serious mistakes, because of the hope of clinging on to power and we have to take that into account when assessing him.

this thread might have also been titled equally aptly as "rashmun's obdurate side and his love for kooks" in that case.

is there a parallel here with you losing your head now and then and making many serious mistakes, like your most recent obsessive and racist threads about telugus?

. Even the preposition works better with this construct.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:00 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote: The Nizam apparently lost his head in the 1940s, and made many serious mistakes, because of the hope of clinging on to power and we have to take that into account when assessing him.

this thread might have also been titled equally aptly as "rashmun's obdurate side and his love for kooks" in that case.

is there a parallel here with you losing your head now and then and making many serious mistakes, like your most recent obsessive and racist threads about telugus?

this thread has shown Charvaka wrong about a few things. for instance, Charvaka was wrong when he claimed that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus. they could not have done that because there were hindus who were supporting the Razakars and also there were hindus who were part of the Razakars. they were only targeting people opposed to the Nizam's rule and since an overwhelming majority (by one estimate 87%) of the populace were Hindus they ended up targeting primarily Hindus. It is foolish to suggest that they targeted hindus for being hindus because why would they target their own supporters?

Charvaka claims that naxalites fought against the Nizam, but according to Ramachandra Guha (one of your favorite writers) the naxalites wanted the Nizam's rule to continue and were sympathetic towards the Nizam. I have not done sufficient study on this issue to agree with either Guha or Charvaka on this issue. But let it be known that Charvaka is espousing a view in contradiction to the view of Guha on the specific question of the naxalite attitude towards the Nizam.

The discussions about telugus was in a specific context and is unrelated to this thread but since you bring it up i would remind of your violent tirades against north indians on sulekha about everything from north indian language to north indian food to the fact that female abortions and female infanticide are taking place in north india (while closing your eyes to the fact that some of the worst affected districts with this problem of female abortion/infanticide are in Tamil Nadu--like Salem and Dharmapuri). Recently you have even started mocking the first language of south indian muslims which is also the most common language spoken in Hyderabad and Bangalore.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:07 am

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote: The Nizam apparently lost his head in the 1940s, and made many serious mistakes, because of the hope of clinging on to power and we have to take that into account when assessing him.

this thread might have also been titled equally aptly as "rashmun's obdurate side and his love for kooks" in that case.

is there a parallel here with you losing your head now and then and making many serious mistakes, like your most recent obsessive and racist threads about telugus?

this thread has shown Charvaka wrong about a few things. for instance, Charvaka was wrong when he claimed that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus. they could not have done that because there were hindus who were supporting the Razakars and also there were hindus who were part of the Razakars. they were only targeting people opposed to the Nizam's rule and since an overwhelming majority (by one estimate 87%) of the populace were Hindus they ended up targeting primarily Hindus. It is foolish to suggest that they targeted hindus for being hindus because why would they target their own supporters?

Charvaka claims that naxalites fought against the Nizam, but according to Ramachandra Guha (one of your favorite writers) the naxalites wanted the Nizam's rule to continue and were sympathetic towards the Nizam. I have not done sufficient study on this issue to agree with either Guha or Charvaka on this issue. But let it be known that Charvaka is espousing a view in contradiction to the view of Guha on the specific question of the naxalite attitude towards the Nizam.

The discussions about telugus was in a specific context and is unrelated to this thread but since you bring it up i would remind of your violent tirades against north indians on sulekha about everything from north indian language to north indian food to the fact that female abortions and female infanticide are taking place in north india (while closing your eyes to the fact that some of the worst affected districts with this problem of female abortion/infanticide are in Tamil Nadu--like Salem and Dharmapuri). Recently you have even started mocking the first language of south indian muslims which is also the most common language spoken in Hyderabad and Bangalore.

Incidentally, if you continue to talk of 'Dakhini-Cluckini', and if Charvaka joins you in calling the national language 'Slangini' as he did recently, then i might be tempted the post the views of the well known CH poster sandilya (who is from coastal Andhra) on Telangana Telugu. Briefly, sandilya believes that Telangana Telugu (Telangini?) reminds him of the braying of a donkey.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:31 am

charvaka wrote:

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?

According to the following article, this Bahadar Yar Jung died in 1944 and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the Nizam got him killed after he had become a huge embarrassment. I find it interesting that Sarojini Naidu would refer to this guy as her son.

----
Bahadur Yar Jung thus reduced the Nizam from the personification of
sovereignty to its mere symbol. He often said things which caused
the Nizam discomfiture, and, not unoften, even offence. Once when
he thundered against the British presence and their direction of
administration in the State, the Nizam was compelled by the Resident
to censure and to silence him and to be confined to his house for some
time. The jagirdars were not allowed to participate in politics. To
overcome that constraint, Bahadur Yar Jung renounced his jagir and title
in 1940 and intensified his activities. That added to his
popularity.

In 1944, he had gone to a dinner at the house of
Hashim Ali Khan, a judge of the High Court and a close friend. Coming
rather late, he ran up the steps and apologized to his host and other
guests. Then he sat down and, as he took a pull at the hookah, he
collapsed. His sudden and unexpected death raised suspicion that he was
poisoned allegedly at he instance of the Nizam. But only whispers were
heard. However, the Nizam joined the mammoth funeral procession the next
morning.

Inspite of his politics, he was a friend of
many leaders of other communities. Sarojini Naidu, for example, used to
refer to him as her son.

His early death changed the course of history in the State.

http://narendralutherarchives.blogspot.com/2006/12/when-nizam-wept.html

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:33 am

charvaka wrote:Here is clear evidence that the Nizam did not ban the Ittehad in 1946 as the footnote wrongly states.

V.P. Menon states in his book The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (pages 235-236):

Accordingly, on 23 March [1948], I addressed a letter to the President of the Nizam's Executive Council which was sent to [KM] Munshi to be delivered personally to [Mir] Laik Ali...

[The letter includes the following words:]
[The Government of India] consider that in the interests of peace inside the State and on both sides of the border the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen should be banned and its organizations wound up.

If the Nizam had already banned the Ittehad in 1946, why was the Government of India writing to the Nizam's premier asking him to ban it in 1948?

one possibility is that after getting banned in 1946, the party resurfaced in 1948.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:36 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote: The Nizam apparently lost his head in the 1940s, and made many serious mistakes, because of the hope of clinging on to power and we have to take that into account when assessing him.

this thread might have also been titled equally aptly as "rashmun's obdurate side and his love for kooks" in that case.

is there a parallel here with you losing your head now and then and making many serious mistakes, like your most recent obsessive and racist threads about telugus?

this thread has shown Charvaka wrong about a few things. for instance, Charvaka was wrong when he claimed that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus. they could not have done that because there were hindus who were supporting the Razakars and also there were hindus who were part of the Razakars. they were only targeting people opposed to the Nizam's rule and since an overwhelming majority (by one estimate 87%) of the populace were Hindus they ended up targeting primarily Hindus. It is foolish to suggest that they targeted hindus for being hindus because why would they target their own supporters?

Charvaka claims that naxalites fought against the Nizam, but according to Ramachandra Guha (one of your favorite writers) the naxalites wanted the Nizam's rule to continue and were sympathetic towards the Nizam. I have not done sufficient study on this issue to agree with either Guha or Charvaka on this issue. But let it be known that Charvaka is espousing a view in contradiction to the view of Guha on the specific question of the naxalite attitude towards the Nizam.

The discussions about telugus was in a specific context and is unrelated to this thread but since you bring it up i would remind of your violent tirades against north indians on sulekha about everything from north indian language to north indian food to the fact that female abortions and female infanticide are taking place in north india (while closing your eyes to the fact that some of the worst affected districts with this problem of female abortion/infanticide are in Tamil Nadu--like Salem and Dharmapuri). Recently you have even started mocking the first language of south indian muslims which is also the most common language spoken in Hyderabad and Bangalore.

Incidentally, if you continue to talk of 'Dakhini-Cluckini', and if Charvaka joins you in calling the national language 'Slangini' as he did recently, then i might be tempted the post the views of the well known CH poster sandilya (who is from coastal Andhra) on Telangana Telugu. Briefly, sandilya believes that Telangana Telugu (Telangini?) reminds him of the braying of a donkey.

Max, is the telugu poster sandilya being racist when he claims that Telangana Telugu is as musical as the braying of a donkey?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:58 am

Rashmun wrote:

Incidentally, if you continue to talk of 'Dakhini-Cluckini', and if Charvaka joins you in calling the national language 'Slangini' as he did recently, then i might be tempted the post the views of the well known CH poster sandilya (who is from coastal Andhra) on Telangana Telugu. Briefly, sandilya believes that Telangana Telugu (Telangini?) reminds him of the braying of a donkey.

haha. i have to run now and will answer the rest of your post later when i have more time, but have you finally lost of your grip on reality? what you've said is comical for two reasons:

a) there is no national language, so one can't make fun of a non-existent thing, and

b) in your febrile state if you were referring to duckini-cluckini and its many variants as the national language, i don't think he was talking about that at all. he was talking about a masters thesis by a german student on IIT madras slang that i had posted a link to. it's a funny and informative read. you should read it.

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:14 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Here is clear evidence that the Nizam did not ban the Ittehad in 1946 as the footnote wrongly states.

V.P. Menon states in his book The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (pages 235-236):

Accordingly, on 23 March [1948], I addressed a letter to the President of the Nizam's Executive Council which was sent to [KM] Munshi to be delivered personally to [Mir] Laik Ali...

[The letter includes the following words:]
[The Government of India] consider that in the interests of peace inside the State and on both sides of the border the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen should be banned and its organizations wound up.

If the Nizam had already banned the Ittehad in 1946, why was the Government of India writing to the Nizam's premier asking him to ban it in 1948?

one possibility is that after getting banned in 1946, the party resurfaced in 1948.

In that case the thesis would still be factually incorrect because it claims, as you repeatedly copy-pasted: The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957.

Should I remind you of your preparedness to change your mind about the Nizam if the thesis was proven factually incorrect?

PS: V.P. Menon's book also makes it abundantly clear that the Ittehad was active between 1946 and 1948. It has numerous references to the organization's activities in the months in between. I will be glad to post those if you don't concede that the thesis got the facts wrong.

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:16 pm

Rashmun wrote:Incidentally, if you continue to talk of 'Dakhini-Cluckini', and if Charvaka joins you in calling the national language 'Slangini' as he did recently, then i might be tempted the post the views of the well known CH poster sandilya (who is from coastal Andhra) on Telangana Telugu. Briefly, sandilya believes that Telangana Telugu (Telangini?) reminds him of the braying of a donkey.

I am so scared.

Duckini-cluckini delicious... Amul!

PS: Slangini for national language!

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:16 pm

Rashmun wrote:Max, is the telugu poster sandilya being racist when he claims that Telangana Telugu is as musical as the braying of a donkey?

I don't think racist is the correct. He was being an ignorant bigot... a position you are intimately familiar with.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:21 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Max, is the telugu poster sandilya being racist when he claims that Telangana Telugu is as musical as the braying of a donkey?
I don't think racist is the correct. He was being an ignorant bigot... a position you are intimately familiar with.

'ignorant bigot' is a good term to describe you if one takes into account your zeal to disassociate yourself from the Dakhini language which is the lingua franca of the city in which you were born and brought up and your coinage of the term 'slangini' to refer to the national language.

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Rashmun wrote:your zeal to disassociate yourself from the Dakhini language which is the lingua franca of the city

I am a proud speaker of Hyderabadi, and I love the language. I know it much, much better than you do.

Rashmun wrote:your coinage of the term 'slangini' to refer to the national language.

What is this national language you speak of?

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:29 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Incidentally, if you continue to talk of 'Dakhini-Cluckini', and if Charvaka joins you in calling the national language 'Slangini' as he did recently, then i might be tempted the post the views of the well known CH poster sandilya (who is from coastal Andhra) on Telangana Telugu. Briefly, sandilya believes that Telangana Telugu (Telangini?) reminds him of the braying of a donkey.

haha. i have to run now and will answer the rest of your post later when i have more time, but have you finally lost of your grip on reality? what you've said is comical for two reasons:

a) there is no national language, so one can't make fun of a non-existent thing, and

b) in your febrile state if you were referring to duckini-cluckini and its many variants as the national language, i don't think he was talking about that at all. he was talking about a masters thesis by a german student on IIT madras slang that i had posted a link to. it's a funny and informative read. you should read it.

Hindustani is the national language in the sense that it is spoken in urban areas of India all across India unlike Telugu and Tamil which are regional languages. You have been using the term 'Dakhini-Cluckini' for quite some time now and when Charvaka used the term 'national language' and 'Slangini' in the same sentence in response to your post it was because he found a good excuse to vent his inner frustration with respect to the fact that Hindustani is and continues to be the national language of India.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:32 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:your zeal to disassociate yourself from the Dakhini language which is the lingua franca of the city
I am a proud speaker of Hyderabadi, and I love the language. I know it much, much better than you do.

Rashmun wrote:your coinage of the term 'slangini' to refer to the national language.
What is this national language you speak of?

Hyderabadi is also known as Dakhini and it is a variant of the national language of India i.e. Hindustani. Rana Daggubati clarifies this:

Rana Daggubati shares why Hyderabadi Hindi is so close to his heart and how unlearning it for a film was so difficult for him

You
could call my Hindi pakka Hyderabadi as I never studied Hindi in
school. I've picked up the language from friends and acquaintances in
the city, so it is a blend of Urdu, Hindi and Telugu. People might find
the nakkos, kaikus and haus a little too Hyderabad. But if they make fun
of my Hindi, I make fun of their's because for me, my Hindi is
perfectly normal!

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-22/news-interviews/30189166_1_rana-daggubati-diction-first-film

---
Your zeal to make a clear distinction between Hyderabadi and Hindi/Hindustani exposes you as a cheap fraud. Hyderabadi is in fact a variant of Hindi/Hindustani

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:42 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:your zeal to disassociate yourself from the Dakhini language which is the lingua franca of the city
I am a proud speaker of Hyderabadi, and I love the language. I know it much, much better than you do.

Rashmun wrote:your coinage of the term 'slangini' to refer to the national language.
What is this national language you speak of?

Hyderabadi is also known as Dakhini and it is a variant of the national language of India i.e. Hindustani. Rana Daggubati clarifies this:

Rana Daggubati shares why Hyderabadi Hindi is so close to his heart and how unlearning it for a film was so difficult for him

You
could call my Hindi pakka Hyderabadi as I never studied Hindi in
school. I've picked up the language from friends and acquaintances in
the city, so it is a blend of Urdu, Hindi and Telugu. People might find
the nakkos, kaikus and haus a little too Hyderabad. But if they make fun
of my Hindi, I make fun of their's because for me, my Hindi is
perfectly normal!

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-22/news-interviews/30189166_1_rana-daggubati-diction-first-film

---
Your zeal to make a clear distinction between Hyderabadi and Hindi/Hindustani exposes you as a cheap fraud. Hyderabadi is in fact a variant of Hindi/Hindustani

The
point is that I never learned for the first five and a half years of
my life, which were spent in Baroda. Ironically, I learned a language
akin to Hindi when we moved to Bangalore, in the heart of South India.
I learned the language, moreover, from drivers and watchmen. They all
thought of us as North Indians and assumed that we knew Hindi. The
language they taught me was intimate, sociable, warm, vital, quick, and
expressive. “Tum ko Hindi nai aata, saam?” I remember being asked. I
said, “Na. Sirf thoda thoda aata.” I told them I knew only Marathi
and Gujarati. My first Hindi teachers said, “Koi baat nahin, hum
sikhata.” And so my lessons started.
“Kab aye tum?”
“Phajar ko.”
“Kay hona tumna?”
“Kuch bhi nahin. Jao ji, humna chhod dalo.”
“Tum kidhar rehte?
“Idhar-ich. Isi colony mein. Tumna malum nahin?”
This
is the sort of Hindi we spoke. You may call it Dakhni or Dakhni Urdu,
but it’s spoken in large parts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and even
in Tamil Nadu. Again, there a local variations. Hyderabadi is a
distinct and much more powerful form than Karnataki. The large Muslim,
Rajput, and other North Indian populations in Bangalore and Mysore,
especially those settled there for over 200 years, speak this language.

http://rashmun.sulekha.com/blog/post/2011/02/the-language-of-all-indians-hindi.htm

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:49 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Here is clear evidence that the Nizam did not ban the Ittehad in 1946 as the footnote wrongly states.

V.P. Menon states in his book The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (pages 235-236):

Accordingly, on 23 March [1948], I addressed a letter to the President of the Nizam's Executive Council which was sent to [KM] Munshi to be delivered personally to [Mir] Laik Ali...

[The letter includes the following words:]
[The Government of India] consider that in the interests of peace inside the State and on both sides of the border the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen should be banned and its organizations wound up.

If the Nizam had already banned the Ittehad in 1946, why was the Government of India writing to the Nizam's premier asking him to ban it in 1948?

one possibility is that after getting banned in 1946, the party resurfaced in 1948.
In that case the thesis would still be factually incorrect because it claims, as you repeatedly copy-pasted: The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957.

it is a well accepted fact that the Majlis was reborn in 1957. So the thesis is correct when it says that it re-emerged in 1957. What happened in 1948, whether the Majlis was actually banned or not in 1946 by the Nizam, and moreover, whether the Nizam publicly withdrew his endorsement for the Majlis after 1938 is something that i intend to study further.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:02 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote: The Nizam apparently lost his head in the 1940s, and made many serious mistakes, because of the hope of clinging on to power and we have to take that into account when assessing him.

this thread might have also been titled equally aptly as "rashmun's obdurate side and his love for kooks" in that case.

is there a parallel here with you losing your head now and then and making many serious mistakes, like your most recent obsessive and racist threads about telugus?

this thread has shown Charvaka wrong about a few things. for instance, Charvaka was wrong when he claimed that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus. they could not have done that because there were hindus who were supporting the Razakars and also there were hindus who were part of the Razakars. they were only targeting people opposed to the Nizam's rule and since an overwhelming majority (by one estimate 87%) of the populace were Hindus they ended up targeting primarily Hindus. It is foolish to suggest that they targeted hindus for being hindus because why would they target their own supporters?

Razakars were not targeting hindus for being hindus (as Charvaka has repeatedly claimed); they were targeting those people in the Nizam's state who wanted the Hyderabad state to merge with India. This means they would have targeted muslims in the Nizam's state who wanted the merger with India.

------
They spread a reign of terror in the State and Razvi issued severe
threats to everyone who dared to oppose or even differed from him. A
young journalist, Shoebullah Khan was murdered by razakars because he
wrote in favour of State’s integration with India.

http://narendraluther.hyderabadi.in/?p=211

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:07 pm

Rashmun wrote:

Hindustani is the national language in the sense that it is spoken in urban areas of India all across India unlike Telugu and Tamil which are regional languages.

there is no sense in which it is the national language. none. what is however true is that tamil is a more global language than hindi. dollars to donuts, there are more tamil speakers outside of india than hindi speakers.

Rashmun wrote:You have been using the term 'Dakhini-Cluckini' for quite some time now ....

wrong again. the correct name for it is duckini-cluckini.

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:10 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote: The Nizam apparently lost his head in the 1940s, and made many serious mistakes, because of the hope of clinging on to power and we have to take that into account when assessing him.

this thread might have also been titled equally aptly as "rashmun's obdurate side and his love for kooks" in that case.

is there a parallel here with you losing your head now and then and making many serious mistakes, like your most recent obsessive and racist threads about telugus?

this thread has shown Charvaka wrong about a few things. for instance, Charvaka was wrong when he claimed that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus. they could not have done that because there were hindus who were supporting the Razakars and also there were hindus who were part of the Razakars. they were only targeting people opposed to the Nizam's rule and since an overwhelming majority (by one estimate 87%) of the populace were Hindus they ended up targeting primarily Hindus. It is foolish to suggest that they targeted hindus for being hindus because why would they target their own supporters?

Razakars were not targeting hindus for being hindus (as Charvaka has repeatedly claimed); they were targeting those people in the Nizam's state who wanted the Hyderabad state to merge with India. This means they would have targeted muslims in the Nizam's state who wanted the merger with India.

------
They spread a reign of terror in the State and Razvi issued severe
threats to everyone who dared to oppose or even differed from him. A
young journalist, Shoebullah Khan was murdered by razakars because he
wrote in favour of State’s integration with India.

http://narendraluther.hyderabadi.in/?p=211

Shoaib was a martyr to the cause of liberation from the autocratic despot. He is still honored by Hyderabadis like me. The difference between Shoaib and many of the Razakars' Hindu victims is this: the Razakars didn't stop to ask the Hindus their views on integration with India before killing them. In the case of Shoaib, they targeted him for his political views; in the case of those Hindus, they killed them as part of a terrorist plan to scare the villagers into submission.

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:13 pm

Rashmun wrote:Your zeal to make a clear distinction between Hyderabadi and Hindi/Hindustani exposes you as a cheap fraud. Hyderabadi is in fact a variant of Hindi/Hindustani

You are very confused on matters of language. I know both Hindi and Hyderabadi better than you. I appreciate the differences between them a lot more than you do, because you have to rely on other people's experiences to come to conclusions.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:13 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote: The Nizam apparently lost his head in the 1940s, and made many serious mistakes, because of the hope of clinging on to power and we have to take that into account when assessing him.

this thread might have also been titled equally aptly as "rashmun's obdurate side and his love for kooks" in that case.

is there a parallel here with you losing your head now and then and making many serious mistakes, like your most recent obsessive and racist threads about telugus?

this thread has shown Charvaka wrong about a few things. for instance, Charvaka was wrong when he claimed that Razakars targeted hindus for being hindus. they could not have done that because there were hindus who were supporting the Razakars and also there were hindus who were part of the Razakars. they were only targeting people opposed to the Nizam's rule and since an overwhelming majority (by one estimate 87%) of the populace were Hindus they ended up targeting primarily Hindus. It is foolish to suggest that they targeted hindus for being hindus because why would they target their own supporters?

Razakars were not targeting hindus for being hindus (as Charvaka has repeatedly claimed); they were targeting those people in the Nizam's state who wanted the Hyderabad state to merge with India. This means they would have targeted muslims in the Nizam's state who wanted the merger with India.

------
They spread a reign of terror in the State and Razvi issued severe
threats to everyone who dared to oppose or even differed from him. A
young journalist, Shoebullah Khan was murdered by razakars because he
wrote in favour of State’s integration with India.

http://narendraluther.hyderabadi.in/?p=211
Shoaib was a martyr to the cause of liberation from the autocratic despot. He is still honored by Hyderabadis like me. The difference between Shoaib and many of the Razakars' Hindu victims is this: the Razakars didn't stop to ask the Hindus their views on integration with India before killing them. In the case of Shoaib, they targeted him for his political views; in the case of those Hindus, they killed them as part of a terrorist plan to scare the villagers into submission.

the reason the Razakars would not have killed hindus for being hindus is because they hindu supporters which included several hindu mathas (and no doubt also their followers) and also several hindu landowners (and no doubt also their retinue because of feudal loyalty). So the Razakars did not target hindus for being hindus because why should they have targeted their own supporters?

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:14 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Your zeal to make a clear distinction between Hyderabadi and Hindi/Hindustani exposes you as a cheap fraud. Hyderabadi is in fact a variant of Hindi/Hindustani
You are very confused on matters of language. I know both Hindi and Hyderabadi better than you. I appreciate the differences between them a lot more than you do, because you have to rely on other people's experiences to come to conclusions.

the fact remains that Hyderabadi is a variant of Hindustani. You can keep talking rubbish to try and show otherwise, because of your regionalist mindset, but you are destined to fail because you are arguing against truth.

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:15 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Here is clear evidence that the Nizam did not ban the Ittehad in 1946 as the footnote wrongly states.

V.P. Menon states in his book The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (pages 235-236):

Accordingly, on 23 March [1948], I addressed a letter to the President of the Nizam's Executive Council which was sent to [KM] Munshi to be delivered personally to [Mir] Laik Ali...

[The letter includes the following words:]
[The Government of India] consider that in the interests of peace inside the State and on both sides of the border the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen should be banned and its organizations wound up.

If the Nizam had already banned the Ittehad in 1946, why was the Government of India writing to the Nizam's premier asking him to ban it in 1948?

one possibility is that after getting banned in 1946, the party resurfaced in 1948.
In that case the thesis would still be factually incorrect because it claims, as you repeatedly copy-pasted: The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957.

it is a well accepted fact that the Majlis was reborn in 1957. So the thesis is correct when it says that it re-emerged in 1957.

So you were wrong to have speculated that it re-emerged in 1948 first, not in "only" in 1957 as the thesis claimed.

Rashmun wrote:What happened in 1948, whether the Majlis was actually banned or not in 1946 by the Nizam, and moreover, whether the Nizam publicly withdrew his endorsement for the Majlis after 1938 is something that i intend to study further.

Please do. What you will find will hopefully reduce your admiration for the communal, despotic, deceitful traitor.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:18 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Your zeal to make a clear distinction between Hyderabadi and Hindi/Hindustani exposes you as a cheap fraud. Hyderabadi is in fact a variant of Hindi/Hindustani
You are very confused on matters of language. I know both Hindi and Hyderabadi better than you. I appreciate the differences between them a lot more than you do, because you have to rely on other people's experiences to come to conclusions.

the fact remains that Hyderabadi is a variant of Hindustani. You can keep talking rubbish to try and show otherwise, because of your regionalist mindset, but you are destined to fail because you are arguing against truth.

In a published paper, Vijeyendra has suggested that the nirguni
tradition lived and traveled in the vernacular rather than in the formal
languages of learning. Since the tradition spans the entire land mass
of India, there must have historically been a common language of
dialogue that it helped evolve and that helped it spread. This
language, that evolved and spread through a vast swathe of the country
from Punjab to the southern reaches of the Deccan, exchanging vocabulary
with each local language it encountered, and even exchanging with the
dravidian languages, it is suggested, is Dakhni
- an ingenious, organic, common tongue, that simplified the grammar as
it traveled and even today swaps vocabulary with the languages it
co-exists among. The 'hindi' of Mumbai (and the film industry) and
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka is Dakhni. Dakhni has also
engaged with Tamil and Malayalam in various parts of the south and it
may be argued that Punjabi (the language of Nanak), is also related to
Dakhni. Not surprisingly, it is also the language that set deep roots
in Bidar and continues to be the most widely used common tongue in the
district, effortlessly bridging speakers of Kannada, Marathi and Telugu
with no distinction of creed or religion. Many experts believe that Dakhni is the true pre-cursor of both modern Urdu and formal Hindi.

http://www.bangalorenotes.com/bidar.htm

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:19 pm

Rashmun wrote:the reason the Razakars would not have killed hindus for being hindus

You are giving reasons something that happened could not have happened. That's what Holocaust deniers do. That is also what apologists for assorted religious fundamentalists do.

Rashmun wrote:is because they hindu supporters which included several hindu mathas (and no doubt also their followers) and also several hindu landowners (and no doubt also their retinue because of feudal loyalty).

The "Hindu supporters of the Razakars" are a complete distraction. They were a tiny majority of Hindus. Razakars did target Hindu villagers arbitrarily. They didn't administer a survey asking people, "do you want integration with India" and then kill / rape only those who said yes.

If only you paused to think instead of being the monkey at the keyboard, you would have gotten this a few days ago.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:21 pm

also rashmun some unsolicited advice -- don't get taken in by the nicey nice tamils who want to tell you what you want hear and write BS on the internet. the majority of them are fair but unyielding SOBs (just like me) on matters pertaining to language. you'll want to know this considering your future marital situation and relatives you are going to get through marital ties.

edited to add: and oh, almost forgot, get someone to translate this for you: "குப்புற விழுந்தாலும் மீசையில் மண் ஒட்டவில்லை."

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:22 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Here is clear evidence that the Nizam did not ban the Ittehad in 1946 as the footnote wrongly states.

V.P. Menon states in his book The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (pages 235-236):

Accordingly, on 23 March [1948], I addressed a letter to the President of the Nizam's Executive Council which was sent to [KM] Munshi to be delivered personally to [Mir] Laik Ali...

[The letter includes the following words:]
[The Government of India] consider that in the interests of peace inside the State and on both sides of the border the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen should be banned and its organizations wound up.

If the Nizam had already banned the Ittehad in 1946, why was the Government of India writing to the Nizam's premier asking him to ban it in 1948?

one possibility is that after getting banned in 1946, the party resurfaced in 1948.
In that case the thesis would still be factually incorrect because it claims, as you repeatedly copy-pasted: The Majlis was banned by the Nizam in 1946 and only re-emerged in 1957.

it is a well accepted fact that the Majlis was reborn in 1957. So the thesis is correct when it says that it re-emerged in 1957.
So you were wrong to have speculated that it re-emerged in 1948 first, not in "only" in 1957 as the thesis claimed.

i made the speculation based on what you wrote because the evidence you gave from a few books (one of which was clearly written by someone with a communal mindset) contradicted the undergraduate thesis that i gave which includes in its references more books on this issue than you will probably ever read in your life. i specified that i was talking of a 'possibility'.

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:24 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:also rashmun some unsolicited advice -- don't get taken in by the nicey nice tamils who want to tell you what you want hear and write BS on the internet. the majority of them are fair but unyielding SOBs (just like me) on matters pertaining to language. you'll want to know this considering your future marital situation and relatives you are going to get through marital ties.

‘TN must be vanguard in promoting Hindi’

Staff Reporter

Share ·
print
· T+

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 5 VBKD-_20011f

THE HINDU
Justice V.S. Malimath, President and Chancellor of Dakshina Bharath
Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai, giving away the medal to rank student at a
function Tiruchi on Sunday.Photo: R.M. Rajarathinam

Having made signal contribution to the freedom
struggle, Tamil Nadu must be in the vanguard in promoting teaching of
our national language Hindi, Justice V.S. Malimath, Chancellor &
President Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai, said here on
Sunday.
The national poet Subramania Bharathi in his
article Young India published in 1905 had emphasised the need and
importance of our people learning Hindi, Justice Malimath said, while
delivering the convocation address at the 13th Visharad Convocation of
Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Tamil Nadu.
"We
must remember that Hindi has a place of pride in the languages spoken in
the world, the language spoken by the third largest number of people in
the world next only to Chinese and English. Hindi is spoken by the
largest number of people in India." Justice Malimath said.
Founded
by Mahatma Gandhi in 1918, the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha has a
unique and distinguished heritage and enjoys a pride of place in the
nation. People of South India are fortunate that they are blessed with
such a great institution to foster teaching of Hindi to our people. "We
must take full advantage of the same and become active participants in
the nation building activity", Justice Malimath pointed out.
It
was after an enormous struggle and great sacrifices that we were able
to break the shackles of slavery and become a free and independent
nation. People from all parts of India joined the freedom struggle
irrespective of their religion, caste, creed or language.
"People
of India must live together as members of one family if we have to
preserve Independence and maintain unity and integrity of our nation. It
is for this reason that the founding fathers of our constitution chose
Hindi our national language", Justice Malimath said. He congratulated
the students for attaining proficiency in Hindi.
Visharad
degree certificates were distributed to over 3,000 students on the
occasion. Rank holders of the exam and four senior Pracharaks were
honoured on the occasion.
The president, Dakshina
Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Tamil Nadu A.P.C.V. Chokkalingam presided
over the convocation. R.F. Nirlakatti, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Post
Graduate and Research Institute, Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Chennai, First Vice President of Tamil Nadu Sabha S. Arunachalam, M.S.
Muralidharan, Second Vice President of the Sabha, Chennai, General
Secretary C.N.V. Annamalai and Second Vice President of the Tamil Nadu
Sabha S. Ravindran and others participated in the programme.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article71427.ece

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:26 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:also rashmun some unsolicited advice -- don't get taken in by the nicey nice tamils who want to tell you what you want hear and write BS on the internet. the majority of them are fair but unyielding SOBs (just like me) on matters pertaining to language. you'll want to know this considering your future marital situation and relatives you are going to get through marital ties.

‘TN must be vanguard in promoting Hindi’

Staff Reporter

Share ·
print
· T+

THE HINDU
Justice V.S. Malimath, President and Chancellor of Dakshina Bharath
Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai, giving away the medal to rank student at a
function Tiruchi on Sunday.Photo: R.M. Rajarathinam

Having made signal contribution to the freedom
struggle, Tamil Nadu must be in the vanguard in promoting teaching of
our national language Hindi, Justice V.S. Malimath, Chancellor &
President Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai, said here on
Sunday.
The national poet Subramania Bharathi in his
article Young India published in 1905 had emphasised the need and
importance of our people learning Hindi, Justice Malimath said, while
delivering the convocation address at the 13th Visharad Convocation of
Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Tamil Nadu.
"We
must remember that Hindi has a place of pride in the languages spoken in
the world, the language spoken by the third largest number of people in
the world next only to Chinese and English. Hindi is spoken by the
largest number of people in India." Justice Malimath said.
Founded
by Mahatma Gandhi in 1918, the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha has a
unique and distinguished heritage and enjoys a pride of place in the
nation. People of South India are fortunate that they are blessed with
such a great institution to foster teaching of Hindi to our people. "We
must take full advantage of the same and become active participants in
the nation building activity", Justice Malimath pointed out.
It
was after an enormous struggle and great sacrifices that we were able
to break the shackles of slavery and become a free and independent
nation. People from all parts of India joined the freedom struggle
irrespective of their religion, caste, creed or language.
"People
of India must live together as members of one family if we have to
preserve Independence and maintain unity and integrity of our nation. It
is for this reason that the founding fathers of our constitution chose
Hindi our national language", Justice Malimath said. He congratulated
the students for attaining proficiency in Hindi.
Visharad
degree certificates were distributed to over 3,000 students on the
occasion. Rank holders of the exam and four senior Pracharaks were
honoured on the occasion.
The president, Dakshina
Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Tamil Nadu A.P.C.V. Chokkalingam presided
over the convocation. R.F. Nirlakatti, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Post
Graduate and Research Institute, Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Chennai, First Vice President of Tamil Nadu Sabha S. Arunachalam, M.S.
Muralidharan, Second Vice President of the Sabha, Chennai, General
Secretary C.N.V. Annamalai and Second Vice President of the Tamil Nadu
Sabha S. Ravindran and others participated in the programme.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article71427.ece

Tamil Nadu
-
Vellore

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 5 Print2

Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha celebrates Hindi Day

Special Correspondent

VELLORE: The Vellore Branch of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha celebrated 59th Hindi Day at its office here on Saturday.

The day on which Hindi became an administrative language under Indian
Parliament Rules in 1949 is observed as Hindi Day every year.

K. Raja, Executive Committee Member of the sabha, Tamil Nadu,
stressed upon the need for conducting seminars and symposia to encourage
Hindi students.

P. Vasantha Sridhar, Principal of Vellore branch, welcomed the gathering.

Prizes distributed

Mr. Raja distributed prizes to winners of various competitions organised in connection with the Hindi Day.

Winners in essay competition:

(Seniors) I prize - M. Manisha Sankari; II prize - V. Ilakkiya; III
prize - A. Shobana; (juniors) I prize - S. Krishnamoorthy; II prize - R.
Krishnaveni; III prize - S. Meenakshi.

Oratorical competition:

I prize - R. Krishnaveni; II prize - V. Ilakkiya; III prize - J.
Vimalraj; IV prize - V. Padmapriya; V prize - S. Krishnamoorthy.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/27/stories/2007092752490300.htm

by Guest Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:27 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the reason the Razakars would not have killed hindus for being hindus
You are giving reasons something that happened could not have happened. That's what Holocaust deniers do. That is also what apologists for assorted religious fundamentalists do.

Rashmun wrote:is because they hindu supporters which included several hindu mathas (and no doubt also their followers) and also several hindu landowners (and no doubt also their retinue because of feudal loyalty).
The "Hindu supporters of the Razakars" are a complete distraction. They were a tiny majority of Hindus. Razakars did target Hindu villagers arbitrarily. They didn't administer a survey asking people, "do you want integration with India" and then kill / rape only those who said yes.

If only you paused to think instead of being the monkey at the keyboard, you would have gotten this a few days ago.

did the Razakars kills members of the hindu mathas which supported them and also hindu landowners (and their retinue) who supported them?

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:37 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the reason the Razakars would not have killed hindus for being hindus
You are giving reasons something that happened could not have happened. That's what Holocaust deniers do. That is also what apologists for assorted religious fundamentalists do.

Rashmun wrote:is because they hindu supporters which included several hindu mathas (and no doubt also their followers) and also several hindu landowners (and no doubt also their retinue because of feudal loyalty).
The "Hindu supporters of the Razakars" are a complete distraction. They were a tiny majority of Hindus. Razakars did target Hindu villagers arbitrarily. They didn't administer a survey asking people, "do you want integration with India" and then kill / rape only those who said yes.

If only you paused to think instead of being the monkey at the keyboard, you would have gotten this a few days ago.

did the Razakars kills members of the hindu mathas which supported them and also hindu landowners (and their retinue) who supported them?

No. Doesn't mean they didn't target Hindus.

by charvaka Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:37 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:also rashmun some unsolicited advice -- don't get taken in by the nicey nice tamils who want to tell you what you want hear and write BS on the internet. the majority of them are fair but unyielding SOBs (just like me) on matters pertaining to language. you'll want to know this considering your future marital situation and relatives you are going to get through marital ties.

‘TN must be vanguard in promoting Hindi’

Staff Reporter

Share ·
print
· T+

THE HINDU
Justice V.S. Malimath, President and Chancellor of Dakshina Bharath
Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai, giving away the medal to rank student at a
function Tiruchi on Sunday.Photo: R.M. Rajarathinam

Having made signal contribution to the freedom
struggle, Tamil Nadu must be in the vanguard in promoting teaching of
our national language Hindi, Justice V.S. Malimath, Chancellor &
President Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai, said here on
Sunday.
The national poet Subramania Bharathi in his
article Young India published in 1905 had emphasised the need and
importance of our people learning Hindi, Justice Malimath said, while
delivering the convocation address at the 13th Visharad Convocation of
Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Tamil Nadu.
"We
must remember that Hindi has a place of pride in the languages spoken in
the world, the language spoken by the third largest number of people in
the world next only to Chinese and English. Hindi is spoken by the
largest number of people in India." Justice Malimath said.
Founded
by Mahatma Gandhi in 1918, the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha has a
unique and distinguished heritage and enjoys a pride of place in the
nation. People of South India are fortunate that they are blessed with
such a great institution to foster teaching of Hindi to our people. "We
must take full advantage of the same and become active participants in
the nation building activity", Justice Malimath pointed out.
It
was after an enormous struggle and great sacrifices that we were able
to break the shackles of slavery and become a free and independent
nation. People from all parts of India joined the freedom struggle
irrespective of their religion, caste, creed or language.
"People
of India must live together as members of one family if we have to
preserve Independence and maintain unity and integrity of our nation. It
is for this reason that the founding fathers of our constitution chose
Hindi our national language", Justice Malimath said. He congratulated
the students for attaining proficiency in Hindi.
Visharad
degree certificates were distributed to over 3,000 students on the
occasion. Rank holders of the exam and four senior Pracharaks were
honoured on the occasion.
The president, Dakshina
Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Tamil Nadu A.P.C.V. Chokkalingam presided
over the convocation. R.F. Nirlakatti, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Post
Graduate and Research Institute, Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha,
Chennai, First Vice President of Tamil Nadu Sabha S. Arunachalam, M.S.
Muralidharan, Second Vice President of the Sabha, Chennai, General
Secretary C.N.V. Annamalai and Second Vice President of the Tamil Nadu
Sabha S. Ravindran and others participated in the programme.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article71427.ece

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 5 Distra10

by Sponsored content