Re: Nizam's generous side and love for books

by Guest Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:05 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Meanwhile, consider the following:

-----
Falsifying history

PARVATHI MENON

....The autocracy of the Nizam undoubtedly had a pro-Muslim, anti-Hindu aspect
to it. The Nizam's administration was largely Muslim, Urdu was imposed on
his subjects, and the Razakars' actions were targeted against Hindus.
I considered it, and all my points are accepted as truth by the writer.

i hope you will agree that in this context the words 'Razakar's actions were targeted against Hindus' should be read as 'Razakar's actions were targeted primarily against Hindus'. The reason is that most of the population of Telangana were Hindus and hence most of the rebels were hindus. The fact that there were muslim rebels who wanted Telangana to merge with India means that they too must have been targeted by the Razakars.

The fact that Razakars had hindus amongst them and the fact that they were targeting both hindus and muslims on the basis not of religion but of whether they were rebels wanting the Nizam's state to merge with India means the anti-hindu rhetoric attributed to Kasim Rizvi by Munshi is either concocted or we will have to agree that Kasim Rizvi had lost contact with reality.

by charvaka Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:11 pm

Rashmun wrote:1. Razakars were comprised not exclusively of muslims; there were hindus who had joined Razakars.

As there were Hindus who fought on Aurangzeb's side. Doesn't make Aurangzeb "secular" to use your favorite word.

Rashmun wrote:2. Since Razakars were targeting those who were for merger of Nizam's state it is inevitable that there would have been clashes between Razakars and those muslims were for the merger. There is incontrovertible evidence from many sources (including this article) that a section of muslims were openly in favor of the merger.

Razakars attacked Hindus for just being Hindu. Muslims were not targeted for being Muslims, but for their political views and for their support of the Hindus.

Rashmun wrote:3. Many Hindus supported the Nizam's rule.

As many Hindus did with Aurangzeb.

Rashmun wrote:4. The fact that Congress called Kasim Razvi 'Nizam's Frankenstein Monster' means they recognized Razvi was no longer under the control of the Nizam and that he (Razvi) had gone out of control.

Razvi was appointed by the Nizam's government. Absolving the Nizam of responsibility in this matter is revisionism.

Rashmun wrote:5. The fact that at the time of the partition of India, the whole country had gone a little crazy (recall the killings of millions of people in north-west and also in eastern India) makes it easier to believe that people like Razvi were no longer under the control of the Nizam.

This craziness was fomented by the Nizam's government. No government officially supported such craziness in other parts of India.

Rashmun wrote:6. Razakars were only formed around the time of the partition of India.
7. Nizam made many mistakes in the 1940's, including his role in the formation of the Razakars (which was formed by the Nizam's prime minister). But that does not mean that we should overlook the good things the Nizam did in the 1920s and 1930s.

Every tyrant in history has his propagandists who tout their good deeds. Those who worship tyranny and authority take comfort in that propaganda; those who do not question the propaganda.

Rashmun wrote:8. I am basing my assessment based on the facts given in the Hindu articles and Frontline article i have given in this thread.
9. My opinion on the Nizam is not dogmatic. I am willing to change my opinion if the facts given in the Hindu and Frontline articles are shown to be incorrect or false.

Your opinion on the Nizam is ill-informed and based on random scraps of information devoid of context.

by charvaka Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:14 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Meanwhile, consider the following:

-----
Falsifying history

PARVATHI MENON

....The autocracy of the Nizam undoubtedly had a pro-Muslim, anti-Hindu aspect
to it. The Nizam's administration was largely Muslim, Urdu was imposed on
his subjects, and the Razakars' actions were targeted against Hindus.
I considered it, and all my points are accepted as truth by the writer.

i hope you will agree that in this context the words 'Razakar's actions were targeted against Hindus' should be read as 'Razakar's actions were targeted primarily against Hindus'. The reason is that most of the population of Telangana were Hindus and hence most of the rebels were hindus. The fact that there were muslim rebels who wanted Telangana to merge with India means that they too must have been targeted by the Razakars.

The fact that Razakars had hindus amongst them and the fact that they were targeting both hindus and muslims on the basis not of religion but of whether they were rebels wanting the Nizam's state to merge with India means the anti-hindu rhetoric attributed to Kasim Rizvi by Munshi is either concocted or we will have to agree that Kasim Rizvi had lost contact with reality.

I don't know whether Kasim Rizvi lost contact with reality, but you most certainly have. Razakars did not target Muslims arbitrarily. They targeted Hindus arbitrarily just for being Hindus. There was a systematic effort to alter the demographics of Telangana. Muslims from the Central Provinces were encouraged to move to Hyderabad, and those Muslims were helped by the Nizam's forces to displace Hindus from their homes in the cities of Hyderabad state.

Also, stop twisting the words of the Frontline article. It is accurate when it says: the Razakars' actions were targeted against Hindus.

by Guest Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:17 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:So the first point to note is that when the Indian government called Kasim Razvi 'Nizam's Frankenstein Monster' they acknowledged the fact that although the Nizam may have had a role in creating him,
Why "may"?

--> because the person who actually made the appointment of Kasim Razvi was not the Nizam, but the Nizam's Prime Minister.
Who appointed that Prime Minister, you? The buck stops at the sovereign leader -- the Nizam.

--> At the time, it is widely believed that the Nizam had lost control over his subordinates. Even the Congress party acknowledged this when they called Kasim Razvi the 'Nizam's Frankenstein Monster'. In ordinary times, i agree that the buck would have stopped at the sovereign leader, but this was an extraordinary time with cataclysmic events taking place all over India and many of our top leaders making wrong decisions and the Nizam according to many people having lost control over his subordinates.

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:The second point to note is that it is not disputed that there were muslims in the state of hyderabad who were for the merger of the Nizam's state with India.
Yes, many poor Muslims fought alongside people like my ancestors in that struggle. The Razakars targeted Hindus for their campaign of terror, and the Muslim neighbors of their victims came to their aid.

--> so i take it you agree that the muslims who fought alongside your ancestors must have also been targeted by the Razakars.

No, they were not. The Razakars targeted the Hindus just for being Hindu; they attacked any Muslims who supported the Hindus, but did not go after Muslims just for being Muslims. That is the difference.

I would have to disagree with this. The Razakars could not possibly have targeted the Hindus for just being Hindu for two reasons:
1. Razakars themselves included hindus amongst them.
2. Many Hindu mathas (togehter no doubt with a large number of not just Hindu monks but also the followers of these mathas); and Hindu landowners (which would in many cases include the entire retinue of the landowners including servants, land tillers, etc.) gave their full support for the Nizam and by this they obviously were with the Razakars who were fighting to protect the Nizam's state. Why would the Razakars target their own supporters?

by Guest Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:22 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Meanwhile, consider the following:

-----
Falsifying history

PARVATHI MENON

....The autocracy of the Nizam undoubtedly had a pro-Muslim, anti-Hindu aspect
to it. The Nizam's administration was largely Muslim, Urdu was imposed on
his subjects, and the Razakars' actions were targeted against Hindus.
I considered it, and all my points are accepted as truth by the writer.

i hope you will agree that in this context the words 'Razakar's actions were targeted against Hindus' should be read as 'Razakar's actions were targeted primarily against Hindus'. The reason is that most of the population of Telangana were Hindus and hence most of the rebels were hindus. The fact that there were muslim rebels who wanted Telangana to merge with India means that they too must have been targeted by the Razakars.

The fact that Razakars had hindus amongst them and the fact that they were targeting both hindus and muslims on the basis not of religion but of whether they were rebels wanting the Nizam's state to merge with India means the anti-hindu rhetoric attributed to Kasim Rizvi by Munshi is either concocted or we will have to agree that Kasim Rizvi had lost contact with reality.
I don't know whether Kasim Rizvi lost contact with reality, but you most certainly have. Razakars did not target Muslims arbitrarily. They targeted Hindus arbitrarily just for being Hindus. There was a systematic effort to alter the demographics of Telangana. Muslims from the Central Provinces were encouraged to move to Hyderabad, and those Muslims were helped by the Nizam's forces to displace Hindus from their homes in the cities of Hyderabad state.

Also, stop twisting the words of the Frontline article. It is accurate when it says: the Razakars' actions were targeted against Hindus.

in my opinion, it is not me but you who has lost contact with reality because of the fact that your ancestors fought against the Nizams. It is understandable that you should have undying hatred for the Nizams if, in particular, some of your ancestors got killed by the Razakars although this would of course not be the mark of a scholar.

Frontline article is very clear when it says that many Hindu mathas and Hindu landowners threw in their support for the Nizam and also when it says that some Hindus has joined the Razakars. So it is foolish to suggest that Razakars were targeting Hindus indiscriminately. They were only targeting those Hindus who wanted the Nizam's state to merge with India.

Because there were many muslims who wanted and fought for the merger with India, it is natural to believe that these muslims must have also been targeted by the Razakars.

by charvaka Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:They were only targeting those Hindus who wanted the Nizam's state to merge with India.

How do you know this?

I recognize the impossible when I see it. I have run into it now. So I will leave you to believe whatever you want to believe about the Nizam. न खलु मूर्ख जन चित्तमाराधयेत्.

by Guest Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:50 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:They were only targeting those Hindus who wanted the Nizam's state to merge with India.
How do you know this?

I recognize the impossible when I see it. I have run into it now. So I will leave you to believe whatever you want to believe about the Nizam. न खलु मूर्ख जन चित्तमाराधयेत्.

The Razakars could not possibly have targeted the Hindus for just being Hindu for two reasons:
1. Razakars themselves included hindus amongst them.
2. Many Hindu mathas (togehter no doubt with a large number of not just Hindu monks but also the followers of these mathas); and Hindu landowners (which would in many cases include the entire retinue of the landowners including servants, land tillers, etc.) gave their full support for the Nizam and by this they obviously were with the Razakars who were fighting to protect the Nizam's state. Why would the Razakars target their own supporters?

----
if you wish to continue this discussion, you will have to answer my question.

by charvaka Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:57 pm

truthbetold wrote:Any other country, Nizam and his clan would have been finished.

In my opinion, it was a good idea to let the Nizam and his clan live as free citizens in India. But the wealth they stole from the people -- worth many decades of per-capita income of the state they ruled -- should have been returned to the state. Telangana's underdevelopment, which continues to plague the state today, was a result of this gross exploitation by the Nizam and his feudal class (both Muslim and Hindu). Nationalizing the bulk of the Nizam's estate would have been a good start to correct that historical injustice to the people of Telangana. Instead, the government gave him a privy purse (which was paid until Indira Gandhi abolished the purses in one of her better moments). The Nizam's government was guilty of crimes against humanity that violate international laws. Prosecution for those charges, with due legal process under the Nuremberg model, would have been even better.

The reason the government chose to accommodate the Nizam was because they were experiencing the Red Scare. The Telangana heartland was in communist hands, and they wanted to keep the rich people on their side while the Indian army fought the communists in the villages and forests. If bolder leadership had prevailed at the center, prosecution and / or stripping the Nizam of most of his stolen property would have occurred, and that would have taken the wind out of the communists' sails. While Sardar Patel was instrumental in ending the Nizam's Reign of Terror, he was too worried about communists -- and too weak in personal health -- to chart the bold course after liberation.

by Guest Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:30 pm

Rashmun wrote:Remembering
the last Nizam

Mir Osman Ali Khan's 120th birth anniversary falls today. A lecture on
his life and times is being organised by the Nizam's Jubilee Pavilion
Trust at the Nizam's Museum, Purani Haveli at 11 a.m.

ROYAL SPLENDOUR: Mir Osman Ali Khan.

ALTHOUGH THE great flood ravaged the domain of Hyderabad in 1908 three
years prior to the ascent of the VII Nizam Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan to
the throne, one of his first assignments was to invite Visweswaraiah to
advise him on how a similar flood could be controlled and excess water
be put to good use. In accordance with his suggestion, the embankment of
the Musi River and construction of Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar Dams
at Gandipet were undertaken. If the old city suffered minimum damage in
the recent flood two years ago the credit goes to the last Nizam for his
foresight and commitment to the welfare of his people. What precautions
have been taken after these waters shattered not just the homes but
lives of so many citizens? Have we used advanced technology and
scientific know-how to implement necessary precautions? Or has the
incident been washed away like so many others from the memory of those
in power and positions of responsibility?

Today, everyone is on the fast track and very few stop to remember the
last Nizam -whose contribution to his people never was and never will be
matched. The ruler who was praised by great leaders like
C.Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Ambedkar and even the imperial
British. Rabindranath Tagore wrote in praise of the first vernacular
University established in 1917 by the Nizam, "I have long been waiting
for the day when, free from the shackles of a foreign language our
education becomes naturally accessible to all our people.'' Up to 11 per
cent of the Nizam's budget was spent on education - schools, colleges,
universities and even a Department for Translation was set up. Primary
education was made compulsory and provided free to poor sections of
society.

A corpus of one crore was earmarked for industrial development and the
Nizam was responsible for the earliest public sector undertakings -
Singareni Collieries and Nizam Sugar Factory. In 1911, the Nizam
suspended capital punishment and replaced it with life imprisonment,
something that was introduced only in 1964 in Britain. He separated the
Judiciary from the Executive, another landmark in history. The City
Improvement Board was set up by him and slums were replaced by planned
colonies. Health and hygiene were amongst the several welfare programs
he pioneered. Unfortunately public memory is short-lived and few people
remember the contributions of the last Nizam. Bhaskar Rao, curator of
the H.E.H. The Nizam's Museum reinforces, "The Nizam's secular outlook
is more than evident in his keen interest to preserve the magnificent
Buddhist frescos at the Ajanta and Ellora Caves. Italian experts were
specially invited for restoration and recreation of these works on
canvas to preserve them for posterity. Each object in this museum speaks
volumes of his enormous contributions.''

``Ours were glorious days, days of plenty under the flourishing regime of the Nizams. Hyderabad was known to bring bharkat
to both the underprivileged and privileged classes alike,'' reminisces
Themi Mehta, wife of well-known cricketer late Soli Mehta. Her
grandfather Sorabjee Pestonjee Kanga, a Persian scholar, was the
personal tutor to the last Nizam, Mir Osman Ali Khan. On every birthday
of the Nizam Kanga composed poetry and presented it in a silver casket
to his `Sarkar' and student. Likewise, the Nizam reciprocated with
utmost respect to his tutor and visited him twice every year - on Parsi
New Year's day and on Kanga's birthday.

The 120th birth anniversary of the VII Nizam falls on September 9, the
Ist Rajjab as per the Hijri calendar. To mark this occasion, The Nizam's
Jubilee Pavilion Trust is holding a Memorial lecture on the Life and
Times of the VII Nizam on Monday,(today) September 9 at 11 a.m. at the
Nizam's Museum, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad.

Find out what no history textbook can ever emphasise enough about this true jewel of Hyderabad. For details, call on 4521029.

PADMINI B. PATELL

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2002/09/09/stories/2002090900640200.htm

My opinion on the Nizam was based on what i read about him in the Hindu newspaper which Charvaka claims is his favorite Indian newspaper. I have said that in the 1940s the Nizam made many mistakes but this does not mean that we should overlook the good things he did in the 1920s and 1930s. The whole country had gone mad in the 1940s and many of our top leaders made serious mistakes.

Besides, if the Nizam was so bad as Charvaka claims him to be, top Indian leaders and intellectuals like Pandit Nehru, C.Rajagopalachari and Rabindranath Tagore would not have praised him. Let me quote again from the Hindu article:

Today, everyone is on the fast track and very few stop to remember the
last Nizam -whose contribution to his people never was and never will be
matched. The ruler who was praised by great leaders like
C.Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Ambedkar and even the imperial
British. Rabindranath Tagore wrote in praise of the first vernacular
University established in 1917 by the Nizam, "I have long been waiting
for the day when, free from the shackles of a foreign language our
education becomes naturally accessible to all our people.'' Up to 11 per
cent of the Nizam's budget was spent on education - schools, colleges,
universities and even a Department for Translation was set up. Primary
education was made compulsory and provided free to poor sections of
society.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2002/09/09/stories/2002090900640200.htm
----

I have also said that i am willing to change my opinion about the Nizam if the facts given in the Hindu articles about him are shown to be false. If i am to be considered a traitor based on the fact that i formed an opinion about the Nizam on the basis of what the Hindu newspaper says about him, then Charvaka should also be considered a traitor because according to Charvaka the Hindu is his favorite Indian newspaper.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:58 pm

re carvaka and the hindu paper, only a child thinks like that rashmun. that is, A admires B, therefore A accepts all that B stands for and says. my young child can be more nuanced than that in her thinking. it's one of the sure signs of growing up.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:02 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:re carvaka and the hindu paper, only a child thinks like that rashmun. that is, A admires B, therefore A accepts all that B stands for and says. my young child can be more nuanced than that in her thinking. it's one of the sure signs of growing up.

at the very least Charvaka should denounce the Hindu newspaper which he claims is his favourite Indian newspaper. But instead of denouncing the Hindu, he prefers to denounce people who form opinions based on certain articles published in the Hindu.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:47 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:re carvaka and the hindu paper, only a child thinks like that rashmun. that is, A admires B, therefore A accepts all that B stands for and says. my young child can be more nuanced than that in her thinking. it's one of the sure signs of growing up.

The problem is the Rashmun Method, not The Hindu.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:07 am

charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:re carvaka and the hindu paper, only a child thinks like that rashmun. that is, A admires B, therefore A accepts all that B stands for and says. my young child can be more nuanced than that in her thinking. it's one of the sure signs of growing up.
The problem is the Rashmun Method, not The Hindu.

Don't call it method... it should be called Rashmun's OCD.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:10 am

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:re carvaka and the hindu paper, only a child thinks like that rashmun. that is, A admires B, therefore A accepts all that B stands for and says. my young child can be more nuanced than that in her thinking. it's one of the sure signs of growing up.

at the very least Charvaka should denounce the Hindu newspaper which he claims is his favourite Indian newspaper. But instead of denouncing the Hindu, he prefers to denounce people who form opinions based on certain articles published in the Hindu.

If you are going to form opinions on historical figures like the Nizam solely based on two or three articles in The Hindu, the joke is on you. Among the newspapers in India, The Hindu is the one that has maintained a modicum of standards, although it has not done a great job overall. For instance, during Indira Gandhi's tyrannical Emergency, The Hindu chose to comply with her whims rather than face up to her -- unlike The Indian Express and The Statesman which did.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:10 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:re carvaka and the hindu paper, only a child thinks like that rashmun. that is, A admires B, therefore A accepts all that B stands for and says. my young child can be more nuanced than that in her thinking. it's one of the sure signs of growing up.
The problem is the Rashmun Method, not The Hindu.

Don't call it method... it should be called Rashmun's OCD.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:11 am

charvaka wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:re carvaka and the hindu paper, only a child thinks like that rashmun. that is, A admires B, therefore A accepts all that B stands for and says. my young child can be more nuanced than that in her thinking. it's one of the sure signs of growing up.
The problem is the Rashmun Method, not The Hindu.

Don't call it method... it should be called Rashmun's OCD.

PP Method!

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:19 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:re carvaka and the hindu paper, only a child thinks like that rashmun. that is, A admires B, therefore A accepts all that B stands for and says. my young child can be more nuanced than that in her thinking. it's one of the sure signs of growing up.

at the very least Charvaka should denounce the Hindu newspaper which he claims is his favourite Indian newspaper. But instead of denouncing the Hindu, he prefers to denounce people who form opinions based on certain articles published in the Hindu.
If you are going to form opinions on historical figures like the Nizam solely based on two or three articles in The Hindu, the joke is on you. Among the newspapers in India, The Hindu is the one that has maintained a modicum of standards, although it has not done a great job overall. For instance, during Indira Gandhi's tyrannical Emergency, The Hindu chose to comply with her whims rather than face up to her -- unlike The Indian Express and The Statesman which did.

I formed a preliminary opinion about the Nizams based on the articles published in the Hindu and also in the Indian Express. I gave extracts and links from these articles. With respect to the Hindu articles, i am yet to see you disputing a single fact mentioned in them. For instance, this fact:

Today, everyone is on the fast track and very few stop to remember the
last Nizam -whose contribution to his people never was and never will be
matched. The ruler who was praised by great leaders like
C.Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Ambedkar and even the imperial
British. Rabindranath Tagore wrote in praise of the first vernacular
University established in 1917 by the Nizam, "I have long been waiting
for the day when, free from the shackles of a foreign language our
education becomes naturally accessible to all our people.'' Up to 11 per
cent of the Nizam's budget was spent on education - schools, colleges,
universities and even a Department for Translation was set up. Primary
education was made compulsory and provided free to poor sections of
society.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2002/09/09/stories/2002090900640200.htm

----
I also do not understand why you refrain from answering a simple question of mine. Is it because you are scared you will continue to tie yourself up in knots if you answer my simple question?

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
The Razakars targeted the Hindus just for being Hindu
The Razakars could not possibly have targeted the Hindus for just being Hindu for two reasons:
1. Razakars themselves included hindus amongst them.
2. Many Hindu mathas (togehter no doubt with a large number of not just Hindu monks but also the followers of these mathas); and Hindu landowners (which would in many cases include the entire retinue of the landowners including servants, land tillers, etc.) gave their full support for the Nizam and by this they obviously were with the Razakars who were fighting to protect the Nizam's state. Why would the Razakars target their own supporters?

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:28 am

Rashmun wrote:I formed a preliminary opinion about the Nizams based on the articles published in the Hindu and also in the Indian Express.

Are you saying you are inclined to change your opinion about the treacherous Nizam? It's about time, I say.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:40 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I formed a preliminary opinion about the Nizams based on the articles published in the Hindu and also in the Indian Express.
Are you saying you are inclined to change your opinion about the treacherous Nizam? It's about time, I say.

I am prepared to change my opinion if you show that the facts given in the Hindu are false and also if you have the courage of your conviction to answer my question which for reasons best known to you you keep evading:

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
The Razakars targeted the Hindus just for being Hindu
The Razakars could not possibly have targeted the Hindus for just being Hindu for two reasons:
1. Razakars themselves included hindus amongst them.
2. Many Hindu mathas (togehter no doubt with a large number of not just Hindu monks but also the followers of these mathas); and Hindu landowners (which would in many cases include the entire retinue of the landowners including servants, land tillers, etc.) gave their full support for the Nizam and by this they obviously were with the Razakars who were fighting to protect the Nizam's state. Why would the Razakars target their own supporters?

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:16 am

Charvaka writes that the Andhra communists were opposed to the Nizams and that there was a direct confrontation of the Nizam's militia, the Razakars, and an armed struggle against the Nizam led by Andhra communists. But according to historian Ramachandra Guha, the Andhra communists were sympathetic towards the demands of the Nizam's Razakars, wanted the Nizam's state to remain independent, and most importantly did not oppose the Razakars. In my opinion, the inquisitive reader will have to do some more work to verify who is right--Charvaka or Ramachandra Guha?

Revisionism Reviewed
Ramachandra Guha's reply

...Finally, some factual points. Karat is correct in pointing out a mistake in the first edition of India After Gandhi: BT Ranadive was not a Brahmin (the error has been rectified in later editions). But he is mistaken in his claim that the communists in Telangana opposed the Razakars. When their land struggle began in 1946 there were no Razakars at all. These Islamic supremacists came to the fore in the middle of 1947, whereupon they advised the Nizam not to join the Indian Union. This was a demand the communists were sympathetic to, since they thought an independent Hyderabad would be more congenial to a Leninist revolution. This dubious legacy is carried on by the armed revolutionaries of the present day—the leading Maoist ideologue Varavara Rao is on record as saying that the Nizam should never have joined the Indian Union.

http://caravanmagazine.in/Story.aspx?StoryID=1171&Page=3

charvaka wrote:A little over 60 years ago, the people of Telangana were in revolt. The revolt was triggered by the feudal exploitation of Telangana's people by the autocratic regime of the Nizam. Thirteen months after India's independence, the Indian Army moved in and ended the tinpot dictatorship of His Exalted Highness Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha, the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad. Patel's decision to send in the Army to liberate Hyderabad was influenced in large part by the growing armed struggle led by the Andhra Communists. Thousands of villages had thrown out the Nizam's police and army, killed or expelled their feudal landlords, and redistributed agricultural land to the tillers.

Starting out from my home district of Nallagonda, this movement swept across Telangana, in spite of brutal repression by the Nizam's Razakars -- a reactionary private militia with support from the government. The song below became the anthem for this revolution, like La Marseillaise had for the French Revolution. To this day, young and old people in Telangana's villages sing this song in memory of telangANA sAyudha pOrATam ("armed struggle"); many people know the song word for word. This song provides insights into Telangana's history, politics and language, particularly for Telugu people from outside Telangana.

banDenaka banDi gaTTi
padahAru banDlu gaTTi
E banDlo pOtavu koDukO
naizAmu sarkarODA...
nAzIla minchinavurO
naizAmu sarkarODA
Vehicle after vehicle, a convoy of sixteen you have readied; which one will you travel in, my son the Nizam? You have exceeded the Nazis in your brutality, o Nizam!

pOlIsu milTri renDu
balavantulAnukOni
nuvu pallelokostivi koDukO
aha pallelokostivi koDuko
naizAmu sarkarODA
You thought your police and military were mighty; you came into our villages -- oh, you came into our villages, my son the Nizam!

jAgirudArulantA
zAmInudArulantA
nI anDa chEriri koDukO
nI anDa chEriri koDukO
naizAmu sarkarODA
The landlords -- jagirdars, zamindars, all of them -- they came to your aid, oh, they came to your aid, my son the Nizam!

strI purushalnta kalisi
pillAlamanta kalisi
vaDi chela rAllu nimpi
vaDivaDi ga koTTitenu
karApu nILLu techchi...
kaLLallo challitEnu
nI milTri pAripOyerO
nI milTri pAripOyerO
naizAmu sarkarODA
Women and men got together, and children too; we filled the paddy fields with stones, and fast and furious we pelted them, water with chilli powder we threw in eyes. Your military ran away -- oh, your military ran away for good, my son the Nizam!

chuTTu muTTU sUryapETa
naTTanaDuma nallagonDa
nuvvunDEdi haiderabAdu
dAnipakka gOlukonDa
golukonDa kilA kinda
golukonDa kilA kinda
nI gOri kaDtam koDukO...
naizAmu sarkarODa
nI gOri kaDtam koDukO...
naizAmu sarkarODa
nI gOri kaDtam koDukO...
naizAmu sarkarODa
Around our area is Suryapeta, bang in the middle is Nallagonda, you live in Hyderabad, and next to that is Golconda. Below the fort of Golconda, right below the fort of Golconda, we will build your tomb, my son the Nizam! Oh, we will build your tomb, my son the Nizam! Oh, we will build your tomb, my son the Nizam!

The references in the song to the Nizam as a son are mildly derogatory and belittling.

Finally, here is a video of this song being sung by Gaddar.

PS: It is a reasonable bet that "good kings" don't cause their subjects to fantasize about burying them.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:25 am

On another note, i find Charvaka's apparent endorsement of the Andhra communists a little disturbing. Naxalism has been the bane of India since independence. Its origin and epicenter is Charvaka's home state. Instead of hanging his head in shame for the widespread misery and anarchy the naxalites have caused to independent India, it is bewildering to find a Telangan openly lauding the naxalites while at the same time questioning the nationalism and patriotism towards India of other Indians.

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka writes that the Andhra communists were opposed to the Nizams and that there was a direct confrontation of the Nizam's militia, the Razakars, and an armed struggle against the Nizam led by Andhra communists. But according to historian Ramachandra Guha, the Andhra communists were sympathetic towards the demands of the Nizam's Razakars, wanted the Nizam's state to remain independent, and most importantly did not oppose the Razakars. In my opinion, the inquisitive reader will have to do some more work to verify who is right--Charvaka or Ramachandra Guha?

Revisionism Reviewed
Ramachandra Guha's reply

...Finally, some factual points. Karat is correct in pointing out a mistake in the first edition of India After Gandhi: BT Ranadive was not a Brahmin (the error has been rectified in later editions). But he is mistaken in his claim that the communists in Telangana opposed the Razakars. When their land struggle began in 1946 there were no Razakars at all. These Islamic supremacists came to the fore in the middle of 1947, whereupon they advised the Nizam not to join the Indian Union. This was a demand the communists were sympathetic to, since they thought an independent Hyderabad would be more congenial to a Leninist revolution. This dubious legacy is carried on by the armed revolutionaries of the present day—the leading Maoist ideologue Varavara Rao is on record as saying that the Nizam should never have joined the Indian Union.

http://caravanmagazine.in/Story.aspx?StoryID=1171&Page=3

charvaka wrote:A little over 60 years ago, the people of Telangana were in revolt. The revolt was triggered by the feudal exploitation of Telangana's people by the autocratic regime of the Nizam. Thirteen months after India's independence, the Indian Army moved in and ended the tinpot dictatorship of His Exalted Highness Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha, the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad. Patel's decision to send in the Army to liberate Hyderabad was influenced in large part by the growing armed struggle led by the Andhra Communists. Thousands of villages had thrown out the Nizam's police and army, killed or expelled their feudal landlords, and redistributed agricultural land to the tillers.

Starting out from my home district of Nallagonda, this movement swept across Telangana, in spite of brutal repression by the Nizam's Razakars -- a reactionary private militia with support from the government. The song below became the anthem for this revolution, like La Marseillaise had for the French Revolution. To this day, young and old people in Telangana's villages sing this song in memory of telangANA sAyudha pOrATam ("armed struggle"); many people know the song word for word. This song provides insights into Telangana's history, politics and language, particularly for Telugu people from outside Telangana.

banDenaka banDi gaTTi
padahAru banDlu gaTTi
E banDlo pOtavu koDukO
naizAmu sarkarODA...
nAzIla minchinavurO
naizAmu sarkarODA
Vehicle after vehicle, a convoy of sixteen you have readied; which one will you travel in, my son the Nizam? You have exceeded the Nazis in your brutality, o Nizam!

pOlIsu milTri renDu
balavantulAnukOni
nuvu pallelokostivi koDukO
aha pallelokostivi koDuko
naizAmu sarkarODA
You thought your police and military were mighty; you came into our villages -- oh, you came into our villages, my son the Nizam!

jAgirudArulantA
zAmInudArulantA
nI anDa chEriri koDukO
nI anDa chEriri koDukO
naizAmu sarkarODA
The landlords -- jagirdars, zamindars, all of them -- they came to your aid, oh, they came to your aid, my son the Nizam!

strI purushalnta kalisi
pillAlamanta kalisi
vaDi chela rAllu nimpi
vaDivaDi ga koTTitenu
karApu nILLu techchi...
kaLLallo challitEnu
nI milTri pAripOyerO
nI milTri pAripOyerO
naizAmu sarkarODA
Women and men got together, and children too; we filled the paddy fields with stones, and fast and furious we pelted them, water with chilli powder we threw in eyes. Your military ran away -- oh, your military ran away for good, my son the Nizam!

chuTTu muTTU sUryapETa
naTTanaDuma nallagonDa
nuvvunDEdi haiderabAdu
dAnipakka gOlukonDa
golukonDa kilA kinda
golukonDa kilA kinda
nI gOri kaDtam koDukO...
naizAmu sarkarODa
nI gOri kaDtam koDukO...
naizAmu sarkarODa
nI gOri kaDtam koDukO...
naizAmu sarkarODa
Around our area is Suryapeta, bang in the middle is Nallagonda, you live in Hyderabad, and next to that is Golconda. Below the fort of Golconda, right below the fort of Golconda, we will build your tomb, my son the Nizam! Oh, we will build your tomb, my son the Nizam! Oh, we will build your tomb, my son the Nizam!

The references in the song to the Nizam as a son are mildly derogatory and belittling.

Finally, here is a video of this song being sung by Gaddar.

PS: It is a reasonable bet that "good kings" don't cause their subjects to fantasize about burying them.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:31 am

Charvaka, can you please let us know whether you are personally a naxalite or a naxalite sympathizer/supporter? Thanks.

Rashmun wrote:On another note, i find Charvaka's apparent endorsement of the Andhra communists a little disturbing. Naxalism has been the bane of India since independence. Its origin and epicenter is Charvaka's home state. Instead of hanging his head in shame for the widespread misery and anarchy the naxalites have caused to independent India, it is bewildering to find a Telangan openly lauding the naxalites while at the same time questioning the nationalism and patriotism towards India of other Indians.

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka writes that the Andhra communists were opposed to the Nizams and that there was a direct confrontation of the Nizam's militia, the Razakars, and an armed struggle against the Nizam led by Andhra communists. But according to historian Ramachandra Guha, the Andhra communists were sympathetic towards the demands of the Nizam's Razakars, wanted the Nizam's state to remain independent, and most importantly did not oppose the Razakars. In my opinion, the inquisitive reader will have to do some more work to verify who is right--Charvaka or Ramachandra Guha?

Revisionism Reviewed
Ramachandra Guha's reply

...Finally, some factual points. Karat is correct in pointing out a mistake in the first edition of India After Gandhi: BT Ranadive was not a Brahmin (the error has been rectified in later editions). But he is mistaken in his claim that the communists in Telangana opposed the Razakars. When their land struggle began in 1946 there were no Razakars at all. These Islamic supremacists came to the fore in the middle of 1947, whereupon they advised the Nizam not to join the Indian Union. This was a demand the communists were sympathetic to, since they thought an independent Hyderabad would be more congenial to a Leninist revolution. This dubious legacy is carried on by the armed revolutionaries of the present day—the leading Maoist ideologue Varavara Rao is on record as saying that the Nizam should never have joined the Indian Union.

http://caravanmagazine.in/Story.aspx?StoryID=1171&Page=3

charvaka wrote:A little over 60 years ago, the people of Telangana were in revolt. The revolt was triggered by the feudal exploitation of Telangana's people by the autocratic regime of the Nizam. Thirteen months after India's independence, the Indian Army moved in and ended the tinpot dictatorship of His Exalted Highness Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha, the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad. Patel's decision to send in the Army to liberate Hyderabad was influenced in large part by the growing armed struggle led by the Andhra Communists. Thousands of villages had thrown out the Nizam's police and army, killed or expelled their feudal landlords, and redistributed agricultural land to the tillers.

Starting out from my home district of Nallagonda, this movement swept across Telangana, in spite of brutal repression by the Nizam's Razakars -- a reactionary private militia with support from the government. The song below became the anthem for this revolution, like La Marseillaise had for the French Revolution. To this day, young and old people in Telangana's villages sing this song in memory of telangANA sAyudha pOrATam ("armed struggle"); many people know the song word for word. This song provides insights into Telangana's history, politics and language, particularly for Telugu people from outside Telangana.

banDenaka banDi gaTTi
padahAru banDlu gaTTi
E banDlo pOtavu koDukO
naizAmu sarkarODA...
nAzIla minchinavurO
naizAmu sarkarODA
Vehicle after vehicle, a convoy of sixteen you have readied; which one will you travel in, my son the Nizam? You have exceeded the Nazis in your brutality, o Nizam!

pOlIsu milTri renDu
balavantulAnukOni
nuvu pallelokostivi koDukO
aha pallelokostivi koDuko
naizAmu sarkarODA
You thought your police and military were mighty; you came into our villages -- oh, you came into our villages, my son the Nizam!

jAgirudArulantA
zAmInudArulantA
nI anDa chEriri koDukO
nI anDa chEriri koDukO
naizAmu sarkarODA
The landlords -- jagirdars, zamindars, all of them -- they came to your aid, oh, they came to your aid, my son the Nizam!

strI purushalnta kalisi
pillAlamanta kalisi
vaDi chela rAllu nimpi
vaDivaDi ga koTTitenu
karApu nILLu techchi...
kaLLallo challitEnu
nI milTri pAripOyerO
nI milTri pAripOyerO
naizAmu sarkarODA
Women and men got together, and children too; we filled the paddy fields with stones, and fast and furious we pelted them, water with chilli powder we threw in eyes. Your military ran away -- oh, your military ran away for good, my son the Nizam!

chuTTu muTTU sUryapETa
naTTanaDuma nallagonDa
nuvvunDEdi haiderabAdu
dAnipakka gOlukonDa
golukonDa kilA kinda
golukonDa kilA kinda
nI gOri kaDtam koDukO...
naizAmu sarkarODa
nI gOri kaDtam koDukO...
naizAmu sarkarODa
nI gOri kaDtam koDukO...
naizAmu sarkarODa
Around our area is Suryapeta, bang in the middle is Nallagonda, you live in Hyderabad, and next to that is Golconda. Below the fort of Golconda, right below the fort of Golconda, we will build your tomb, my son the Nizam! Oh, we will build your tomb, my son the Nizam! Oh, we will build your tomb, my son the Nizam!

The references in the song to the Nizam as a son are mildly derogatory and belittling.

Finally, here is a video of this song being sung by Gaddar.

PS: It is a reasonable bet that "good kings" don't cause their subjects to fantasize about burying them.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:36 am

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, can you please let us know whether you are personally a naxalite or a naxalite sympathizer/supporter? Thanks.

I am not. Now, are you a supporter of Pakistan? Your hero the Nizam tried his very best to keep Hyderabad out of India, and gave away Indian tax money to Pakistan, and you praise him, per your own admission. Do you lack the courage to respond to this? If so, just say yes, and I will make allowance for your cowardice -- that comes with servility to tyranny so I won't consider it a personal failing.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:37 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, can you please let us know whether you are personally a naxalite or a naxalite sympathizer/supporter? Thanks.
I am not. Now, are you a supporter of Pakistan?

No i am not.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:41 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, can you please let us know whether you are personally a naxalite or a naxalite sympathizer/supporter? Thanks.
I am not. Now, are you a supporter of Pakistan?

No i am not.

But you do lack the courage to respond to my question. That's OK, I understand.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:45 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, can you please let us know whether you are personally a naxalite or a naxalite sympathizer/supporter? Thanks.
I am not. Now, are you a supporter of Pakistan?

No i am not.
But you do lack the courage to respond to my question. That's OK, I understand.

I am glad you understand, but why not reply to the simple question i have been asking for some time now:

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
The Razakars targeted the Hindus just for being Hindu
The Razakars could not possibly have targeted the Hindus for just being Hindu for two reasons:
1. Razakars themselves included hindus amongst them.
2. Many Hindu mathas (togehter no doubt with a large number of not just Hindu monks but also the followers of these mathas); and Hindu landowners (which would in many cases include the entire retinue of the landowners including servants, land tillers, etc.) gave their full support for the Nizam and by this they obviously were with the Razakars who were fighting to protect the Nizam's state. Why would the Razakars target their own supporters?

Moreover, it is strange to find you not reacting to Ramachandra Guha's claim that your heros the Naxalites were sympathetic towards the Nizam and wanted to keep Hyderabad out of the Indian union.

Revisionism Reviewed
Ramachandra Guha's reply

...Finally, some factual points. Karat is correct in pointing out a mistake in the first edition of India After Gandhi: BT Ranadive was not a Brahmin (the error has been rectified in later editions). But he is mistaken in his claim that the communists in Telangana opposed the Razakars. When their land struggle began in 1946 there were no Razakars at all. These Islamic supremacists came to the fore in the middle of 1947, whereupon they advised the Nizam not to join the Indian Union. This was a demand the communists were sympathetic to, since they thought an independent Hyderabad would be more congenial to a Leninist revolution. This dubious legacy is carried on by the armed revolutionaries of the present day—the leading Maoist ideologue Varavara Rao is on record as saying that the Nizam should never have joined the Indian Union.

http://caravanmagazine.in/Story.aspx?StoryID=1171&Page=3

by truthbetold Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:49 am

Rashmun and carvaka
Google sundarayya and razakaars. You should find a google book t... armed struggle and its lessons with a coauthor. Read pages 40 to 45.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:45 am

A ‘miser' who donated generously

Special Correspondent

Mir Osman Ali Khan donated liberally to places of worship

Along with Muslim employees, Christians and Hindus given special leave for visiting holy places
The seventh Nizam also granted Rs. 1 lakh each to the Andhra and the Benaras Hindu Universities

Hyderabad: The Yadgarpally temple at Bhongir received a grant of Rs.
82,825. Sitarambagh temple got Rs. 50,000, Bhadrachalam temple Rs.
29,999 and Balaji temple in Tirupati Rs. 8,000.

No, these are not grants made by the present dispensation but by the
erstwhile Nizam's regime. The Seventh Nizam, Mir Osman Ali Khan, was
generous in donations to churches, mosques and Gurudwaras too. Though a
strict follower of Islam, he displayed exemplary tolerance towards other
faiths.

These little known details were an eye opener to many who turned up
for the talk on “The cultural contributions of Mir Osman Ali Khan”
organised at the Princess Esin Women's Educational Centre here on
Thursday. The programme was held as part of the formation day of the
H.E.H. The Nizam's Museum. A.K.V.S. Reddy, Director-General, National
Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management, presided.

Among the audience was the last Nizam's grandson, Muffakham Jah
Bahadur. It was his keen interest that led to the establishment of the
Nizam's Museum in 2000. Zareena Parveen, Director, A.P. State Archives
and Research Institute, raised eyebrows of many when she explained how
the last Nizam was secular to the core. Often dubbed a ‘miser', he was
benevolent when it came to helping out others.

Preserved culture

He took pains for preservation of the ancient and medieval culture of
the Deccan and did his best for cultural synthesis. He took steps for
protection of the world famous frescoes of Ajanta and Ellora. His
government honoured religious leaders like Guruswamy Danamamal. Along
with Muslim government servants, the Hindus and Christians were given
six months special leave and advance salary for visiting their holy
places. “He always proclaimed that Hindus and Muslims were his two
eyes,” Dr. Parveen said.

Education

A progressive ruler, the Nizam's reign ushered in an era of
construction of public buildings. He also patronised learning
institutions and granted Rs. 1 lakh each to the Andhra and the Benaras
Hindu Universities, besides financing several socio charitable
institutions.

Dr. Parveen lauded the pragmatic approach of the Nizam for emancipation of women.
Despite opposition, he introduced progressive reforms and encouraged
education of the downtrodden and vulnerable sections of society.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/19/stories/2010021959490200.htm

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:56 pm

Putting the Nizam's rule in perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:20 pm

truthbetold wrote:Rashmun and carvaka
Google sundarayya and razakaars. You should find a google book t... armed struggle and its lessons with a coauthor. Read pages 40 to 45.

I have read Sundarayya's book on the armed struggle. I think to get a good understanding of the history, one needs to read the accounts by KM Munshi, Sundarayya, and Mir Laiq Ali. No single party in that struggle tells the whole truth.

by doofus_maximus Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:26 pm

charvaka wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rashmun and carvaka
Google sundarayya and razakaars. You should find a google book t... armed struggle and its lessons with a coauthor. Read pages 40 to 45.
I have read Sundarayya's book on the armed struggle. I think to get a good understanding of the history, one needs to read the accounts by KM Munshi, Sundarayya, and Mir Laiq Ali. No single party in that struggle tells the whole truth.

I often read Rashmun to get the whole truth. You should try it. Also I only read the excerpts or the prologue and get the whole truth.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:28 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:
charvaka wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rashmun and carvaka
Google sundarayya and razakaars. You should find a google book t... armed struggle and its lessons with a coauthor. Read pages 40 to 45.
I have read Sundarayya's book on the armed struggle. I think to get a good understanding of the history, one needs to read the accounts by KM Munshi, Sundarayya, and Mir Laiq Ali. No single party in that struggle tells the whole truth.

I often read Rashmun to get the whole truth. You should try it. Also I only read the excerpts or the prologue and get the whole truth.

1.	doffus
	An idiot. A klutz. Oh man - I'm such a doffus, I just cut my leg off. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doffus

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:51 pm

Rashmun wrote:

Putting the Nizam's rule in perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TBT,
Please share your thoughts on the above blog. Also, thanks for the book recommendation.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:15 pm

AV Satish Chandra wrote:And which ruler of any kind would do things without
collecting taxes from the people? Let me put it this way; it was
possible for the Nizam to collect taxes and do nothing for the people.

The Nizam collected a lot more in taxes than other rulers, which is why his fortune is valued at $210 billion and he is among the world's richest men although he ruled a poor state.

AV Satish Chandra wrote:But he did do something for the people. The Osmania University was set
up and along with it a translation bureau to translate technical terms
of medicine, engineering and agriculture from English to Urdu.

When the language of 85% of the people was not Urdu, he chose to spend taxpayer money to impose Urdu on them. This is far from a "contribution to development."

AV Satish Chandra wrote:My
grand father and his brothers were beneficiaries of this.

And therein lies a reason to trust his and his father's views regarding the Nizam. For every such beneficiary, there were thousands upon thousands who were exploited by the Nizam's feudal serfdom.

AV Satish Chandra wrote:I am not lionising the Nizam

The fact that a beneficiary of his policies does not lionize the Nizam says a lot about how much scope for lionization there really is in the Nizam's work! Not that that stops Rashmun from lionizing the Nizam as a "good king" and such.

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

Even the descendants of the elite who benefited from the Nizam's policies won't deny the excesses of the Razakars, but Rashmun gladly will.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:23 pm

AV Satish Chandra wrote:
charvaka wrote:This post will also not deny the excesses of
the Razakars. That is also a true piece of history.
Even the descendants of the elite who benefited from the Nizam's policies won't deny the excesses of the Razakars, but Rashmun gladly will.

I have never denied the excesses of the Razakars. I have only pointed out, like Ramachandra Guha, that the Razakars came into existence at the time of independence with the purpose of trying to preserve the Nizam's rule. Charvaka is once again revealing himself to be a cheap LIAR and SLANDERER.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:26 pm

charvaka wrote:
AV Satish Chandra wrote:My
grand father and his brothers were beneficiaries of this.
And therein lies a reason to trust his and his father's views regarding the Nizam. For every such beneficiary, there were thousands upon thousands who were exploited by the Nizam's feudal serfdom.

--> The point is that the Nizam was offering educational scholarships to deserving candidates and these scholarships were given to Hindu students as well. So it is a canard to suggest that the Nizam was communal because in that case he would only have given educational scholarships to muslim students.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:33 pm

charvaka wrote:
AV Satish Chandra wrote:And which ruler of any kind would do things without
collecting taxes from the people? Let me put it this way; it was
possible for the Nizam to collect taxes and do nothing for the people.
The Nizam collected a lot more in taxes than other rulers, which is why his fortune is valued at $210 billion and he is among the world's richest men although he ruled a poor state.

--> The reason why he was so wealthy was because he ruled over a vast state. The Hindu kings of the time were also ruling over poor states, and not rich states, but they were not as wealthy because their states were much smaller.

charvaka wrote:
AV Satish Chandra wrote:But he did do something for the people. The Osmania University was set
up and along with it a translation bureau to translate technical terms
of medicine, engineering and agriculture from English to Urdu.
When the language of 85% of the people was not Urdu, he chose to spend taxpayer money to impose Urdu on them. This is far from a "contribution to development."

--> Urdu was not foriegn to the people of Telangana. In fact, Dakhini or Dakhini Urdu (a variant of Hindustani) is said to be the lingua franca of the deccan. (Even Telangana Telugu (which is also known as Dakhini Telugu or Hybrid Telugu) as many hindi-urdu words in it.) Moreover, the Nizam's state included not just parts of present day Telangana but also parts of present day Karnataka and Maharashtra. It would have been unfair on the Marathi speaking and Kannada speaking populace in the Nizam's kingdom to impose Telugu on everyone. Imposing Dakhini (a variant of Hindustani) was fair and just because the vast majority of the people in the Nizam's state knew this language.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
AV Satish Chandra wrote:And which ruler of any kind would do things without
collecting taxes from the people? Let me put it this way; it was
possible for the Nizam to collect taxes and do nothing for the people.
The Nizam collected a lot more in taxes than other rulers, which is why his fortune is valued at $210 billion and he is among the world's richest men although he ruled a poor state.

--> The reason why he was so wealthy was because he ruled over a vast state. The Hindu kings of the time were also ruling over poor states, and not rich states, but they were not as wealthy because their states were much smaller.

charvaka wrote:
AV Satish Chandra wrote:But he did do something for the people. The Osmania University was set
up and along with it a translation bureau to translate technical terms
of medicine, engineering and agriculture from English to Urdu.
When the language of 85% of the people was not Urdu, he chose to spend taxpayer money to impose Urdu on them. This is far from a "contribution to development."

--> Urdu was not foriegn to the people of Telangana. In fact, Dakhini or Dakhini Urdu (a variant of Hindustani) is said to be the lingua franca of the deccan. (Even Telangana Telugu (which is also known as Dakhini Telugu or Hybrid Telugu) has many hindi-urdu words in it.) Moreover, the Nizam's state included not just present day Telangana but also parts of present day Karnataka and Maharashtra. It would have been unfair on the Marathi speaking and Kannada speaking populace in the Nizam's kingdom to impose Telugu on everyone. Imposing Dakhini (a variant of Hindustani) was fair and just because the vast majority of the people in the Nizam's state knew this language.

What is Dakhni?

Dakhni is the lingua franca of the Deccan. The Deccan is roughly the
area between the Narmada and Tungabhadra or Krishna. On the east it is
bounded by the Mahanadi and on the west by the Western Ghats. It is the
great South Indian plateau. Politically it is comprised of Berar
(present-day Vidarbha with Nagpur as its important city), ten Telangana
districts of Andhra Pradesh, the Maharashtra districts of Latur, Nanded,
Ahmednagar, Beed and Aurngabad, and the Karnataka districts of Bijapur,
Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary.

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

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:42 pm

Rashmun wrote:I have never denied the excesses of the Razakars.

A weak memory is a prerequisite for revisionists.

Rashmun: The Razakars could not possibly have targeted the Hindus for just being Hindu

Rashmun: it is foolish to suggest that Razakars were targeting Hindus
indiscriminately. They were only targeting those Hindus who wanted the
Nizam's state to merge with India.

Rashmun: in this context the words 'Razakar's actions were targeted against
Hindus' should be read as 'Razakar's actions were targeted primarily
against Hindus'. The reason is that most of the population of Telangana
were Hindus and hence most of the rebels were hindus.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
AV Satish Chandra wrote:And which ruler of any kind would do things without
collecting taxes from the people? Let me put it this way; it was
possible for the Nizam to collect taxes and do nothing for the people.
The Nizam collected a lot more in taxes than other rulers, which is why his fortune is valued at $210 billion and he is among the world's richest men although he ruled a poor state.

--> The reason why he was so wealthy was because he ruled over a vast state. The Hindu kings of the time were also ruling over poor states, and not rich states, but they were not as wealthy because their states were much smaller.

charvaka wrote:
AV Satish Chandra wrote:But he did do something for the people. The Osmania University was set
up and along with it a translation bureau to translate technical terms
of medicine, engineering and agriculture from English to Urdu.
When the language of 85% of the people was not Urdu, he chose to spend taxpayer money to impose Urdu on them. This is far from a "contribution to development."

--> Urdu was not foriegn to the people of Telangana. In fact, Dakhini or Dakhini Urdu (a variant of Hindustani) is said to be the lingua franca of the deccan. (Even Telangana Telugu (which is also known as Dakhini Telugu or Hybrid Telugu) has many hindi-urdu words in it.) Moreover, the Nizam's state included not just present day Telangana but also parts of present day Karnataka and Maharashtra. It would have been unfair on the Marathi speaking and Kannada speaking populace in the Nizam's kingdom to impose Telugu on everyone. Imposing Dakhini (a variant of Hindustani) was fair and just because the vast majority of the people in the Nizam's state knew this language.

What is Dakhni?

Dakhni is the lingua franca of the Deccan. The Deccan is roughly the
area between the Narmada and Tungabhadra or Krishna. On the east it is
bounded by the Mahanadi and on the west by the Western Ghats. It is the
great South Indian plateau. Politically it is comprised of Berar
(present-day Vidarbha with Nagpur as its important city), ten Telangana
districts of Andhra Pradesh, the Maharashtra districts of Latur, Nanded,
Ahmednagar, Beed and Aurngabad, and the Karnataka districts of Bijapur,
Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary.

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

So what the Nizam was obviously trying to do by asking his subjects to learn Dakhini Urdu (a southern Indian variant of Hindustani) was to try and create a link language between his Telugu, Kannadiga, and Maharashtrian subjects. Nothing wrong with this. And his efforts seem to have borne fruit. In retrospect, the Nizam deserves credit for asking his subjects to learn Hindustani as the following incident shows:

I may relate a personal experience. I was traveling in a taxi from
Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh to Gulbarga in Karnataka where I had to
attend a function. The taxi driver was a Telugu speaking person while
the Professor of Gulbarga University who came to fetch me was a Kannada
speaking gentleman, but they spoke to each other in Hindi. I was
surprised, since both these persons were South Indians, and I asked
them why they were speaking in Hindi. They said that that was because
Hindi was the link language for them both.

http://kgfindia.com/jamia-speech-on-urdu.php

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:48 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I have never denied the excesses of the Razakars.
A weak memory is a prerequisite for revisionists.

Rashmun: The Razakars could not possibly have targeted the Hindus for just being Hindu

Rashmun: it is foolish to suggest that Razakars were targeting Hindus
indiscriminately. They were only targeting those Hindus who wanted the
Nizam's state to merge with India.

Rashmun: in this context the words 'Razakar's actions were targeted against
Hindus' should be read as 'Razakar's actions were targeted primarily
against Hindus'. The reason is that most of the population of Telangana
were Hindus and hence most of the rebels were hindus.

What i said what that the Razakars would not have targetted Hindus just for being Hindus because Hindus were a part of the Razakars and also because many Hindus supported the Razakars. People who were for the merger of the Nizam's state with India and who opposed the Razakars were the ones targetted by the Razakars. In crushing people who were for the merger with India, i am not denying that the Razakars committed regrettable excesses.

Moreover, you have still not responded to Ramachandra Guha's allegation that your heros, the Naxalites, were sympathetic towards the Razakars and that these Naxalites did not want the Nizam's state to merge with India.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I have never denied the excesses of the Razakars.
A weak memory is a prerequisite for revisionists.

Rashmun: The Razakars could not possibly have targeted the Hindus for just being Hindu

Rashmun: it is foolish to suggest that Razakars were targeting Hindus
indiscriminately. They were only targeting those Hindus who wanted the
Nizam's state to merge with India.

Rashmun: in this context the words 'Razakar's actions were targeted against
Hindus' should be read as 'Razakar's actions were targeted primarily
against Hindus'. The reason is that most of the population of Telangana
were Hindus and hence most of the rebels were hindus.

What i said what that the Razakars would not have targetted Hindus just for being Hindus because Hindus were a part of the Razakars and also because many Hindus supported the Razakars. People who were for the merger of the Nizam's state with India and who opposed the Razakars were the ones targetted by the Razakars. In crushing people who were for the merger with India, i am not denying that the Razakars committed regrettable excesses.

Moreover, you have still not responded to Ramachandra Guha's allegation that your heros, the Naxalites, were sympathetic towards the Razakars and that these Naxalites did not want the Nizam's state to merge with India.

Nizam's generous side and love for books - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYppR8Dog4-aeQsoElEwteFU_rFHJJJXTNfg6hBdG0L2IMNPL7uw

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:02 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, can you please let us know whether you are personally a naxalite or a naxalite sympathizer/supporter? Thanks.
I am not. Now, are you a supporter of Pakistan?

No i am not.
But you do lack the courage to respond to my question. That's OK, I understand.

I am glad you understand, but why not reply to the simple question i have been asking for some time now:

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
The Razakars targeted the Hindus just for being Hindu
The Razakars could not possibly have targeted the Hindus for just being Hindu for two reasons:
1. Razakars themselves included hindus amongst them.
2. Many Hindu mathas (togehter no doubt with a large number of not just Hindu monks but also the followers of these mathas); and Hindu landowners (which would in many cases include the entire retinue of the landowners including servants, land tillers, etc.) gave their full support for the Nizam and by this they obviously were with the Razakars who were fighting to protect the Nizam's state. Why would the Razakars target their own supporters?

Moreover, it is strange to find you not reacting to Ramachandra Guha's claim that your heros the Naxalites were sympathetic towards the Nizam and wanted to keep Hyderabad out of the Indian union.

Revisionism Reviewed
Ramachandra Guha's reply

...Finally, some factual points. Karat is correct in pointing out a mistake in the first edition of India After Gandhi: BT Ranadive was not a Brahmin (the error has been rectified in later editions). But he is mistaken in his claim that the communists in Telangana opposed the Razakars. When their land struggle began in 1946 there were no Razakars at all. These Islamic supremacists came to the fore in the middle of 1947, whereupon they advised the Nizam not to join the Indian Union. This was a demand the communists were sympathetic to, since they thought an independent Hyderabad would be more congenial to a Leninist revolution. This dubious legacy is carried on by the armed revolutionaries of the present day—the leading Maoist ideologue Varavara Rao is on record as saying that the Nizam should never have joined the Indian Union.

http://caravanmagazine.in/Story.aspx?StoryID=1171&Page=3

.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:31 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> Urdu was not foriegn to the people of Telangana.

Nor is Telugu, so by your own logic (and only by your logic, not mine), it would be fine to impose it on Kannada and Marathi people, na? After all, the percentage of native Telugu speakers in Hyderabad state was higher than the percentage of native Hindi speakers is in India!

Rashmun wrote:It would have been unfair on the Marathi speaking and Kannada speaking populace in the Nizam's kingdom to impose Telugu on everyone.

You can't apply a consistent principle even throughout one single post!

Primary education in each of the three regions ought to have been provided in the local language, not Urdu.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:33 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It would have been unfair on the Marathi speaking and Kannada speaking populace in the Nizam's kingdom to impose Telugu on everyone.
You can't apply a consistent principle even throughout one single post!

Primary education in each of the three regions ought to have been provided in the local language, not Urdu.

the point is that there was a need for a link language to be present which would enable marathi, kannada, and telugu speakers in the Nizam's domain to communicate with each other. Dakhini, the southern indian variant of Hindustani, was widely known in this region and hence it made sense to educate everyone in Dakhini.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:35 pm

Rashmun wrote:The reason why he was so wealthy was because he ruled over a vast state. The Hindu kings of the time were also ruling over poor states, and not rich states, but they were not as wealthy because their states were much smaller.

Below are the populations of the three largest princely states in 1941. Do you think the kings of Mysore and Jammu & Kashmir amassed $50 billion apiece?

Hyderabad: 16 million
J&K: 4 million
Mysore: 4 million

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It would have been unfair on the Marathi speaking and Kannada speaking populace in the Nizam's kingdom to impose Telugu on everyone.
You can't apply a consistent principle even throughout one single post!

Primary education in each of the three regions ought to have been provided in the local language, not Urdu.

the point is that there was a need for a link language to be present which would enable marathi, kannada, and telugu speakers in the Nizam's domain to communicate with each other. Dakhini, the southern indian variant of Hindustani, was widely known in this region and hence it made sense to educate everyone in Dakhini.

That is imposition of the language of the minority rulers over the majority. No amount of lipstick is going to make that pig look pretty.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:47 pm

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

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

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:56 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It would have been unfair on the Marathi speaking and Kannada speaking populace in the Nizam's kingdom to impose Telugu on everyone.
You can't apply a consistent principle even throughout one single post!

Primary education in each of the three regions ought to have been provided in the local language, not Urdu.

the point is that there was a need for a link language to be present which would enable marathi, kannada, and telugu speakers in the Nizam's domain to communicate with each other. Dakhini, the southern indian variant of Hindustani, was widely known in this region and hence it made sense to educate everyone in Dakhini.
That is imposition of the language of the minority rulers over the majority. No amount of lipstick is going to make that pig look pretty.

At least in the urban regions in the domain of the Nizams, people *knew* Hindustani in the form of Dakhini (i.e. it was not a foreign language to them). Nizams did not just come along and impose a new language on their people.

Kannada and Marathi speaking people would have preferred to learn the southern variant of Hindustani rather than Telugu because knowing Hindustani helped you connect with the rest of India while learning a local language would have been less useful. Telugus would also have agreed to learn the southern variant of Hindustani because learning a national language makes more sense than learning a local language. Learning Hindustani helped Telugus connect with not just Kannadigas and Maharashtrians but with the rest of India.

by charvaka Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:03 pm

Rashmun wrote:Kannada and Marathi speaking people would have preferred to learn the southern variant of Hindustani rather than Telugu

This is a false choice. Only quixotic believers in authoritarianism would imagine that the choice for language of primary education is between Urdu and Telugu when it came to Kannada and Marathi regions. The choice for Kannada- and Marathi-speaking people was between Urdu and Kannada / Marathi.

by Sponsored content