The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
+4
FluteHolder
doofus_maximus
Marathadi-Saamiyaar
charvaka
8 posters
Page 1 of 1
The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
His Exalted Highness* Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad, the sovereign ruler -- under Pax Britannica -- of a territory larger than England, Wales and Scotland combined. In 1947, the Nizam, the seventh of his dynasty was the world's richest man and most of his subjects were among the world's poorest men and women. He had amassed indecent amounts of wealth, to the extent that Indian National Congress intellectuals found it difficult to support him -- although INC was the original organization of the bourgeoisie, and was then led by a rich Allahabadi whose great-grandfather was the very first vakIl (lawyer) of the East India Company at the Mughal court in Delhi (yes, I am talking about the ancestors of the venerable Jawaharlal Nehru for whom I have a great deal of respect).
When the time of reckoning came on August 15, 1947, Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was clear in what he wanted. He wanted to leave a gaping hole in the middle of India. He wanted independence, or he wanted to join Pakistan. He certainly did not want to join the Hindu-dominated Indian Union. On the very last day of his rule over Telangana, when the Indian army was less than 12 hours away from the city of Hyderabad, he sent instructions to his bank in London to transfer money from his government's account to that of Pakistan. Such was the loyalty of this "good king" to India or the people he ruled over -- the people who had turned him into the world's richest man while they themselves were among the world's poorest.
Rashmun supports the pro-Pakistan king who gave the money of Indian peasants away to the government of Pakistan and wanted to leave India with a big hole in its middle. And he has the audacity to style himself as an Indian "nationalist." The Nizam was anything but an Indian nationalist, but Rashmun goes out of his way to defend this treacherous tyrant. If anything, the Nizam's enemies were the Indian nationalists, who forged an India that includes the heart of the Deccan. Indians like Rashmun wouldn't be able to talk about Dakhni if the Dakhan (anglicized as the Deccan) wasn't part of India as the Nizam wanted in his day-dreams, but for the efforts of the ordinary and brave people of Telangana, including my own ancestors who fought for its liberation from the tyrant. The Nizam was a much worse regionalist than Kayal Vizhi when it came to trying to fracture India, but Rashmun merrily supports him. Why is this? Rashmun, why do you support treacherous kings who wanted to disrupt the unity and integrity of India?
* Progressive students of the Nizam College, including my high-school headmaster, used to call the Nizam "His Exhausted Highness." Referring to the Nizam thusly on campus resulted in students being expelled, imprisoned and tortured. Such was the state of civil liberties in the state run by HEH the Nizam.
PS: Thanks to Max for posting the article from which I have pulled the picture above.
When the time of reckoning came on August 15, 1947, Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was clear in what he wanted. He wanted to leave a gaping hole in the middle of India. He wanted independence, or he wanted to join Pakistan. He certainly did not want to join the Hindu-dominated Indian Union. On the very last day of his rule over Telangana, when the Indian army was less than 12 hours away from the city of Hyderabad, he sent instructions to his bank in London to transfer money from his government's account to that of Pakistan. Such was the loyalty of this "good king" to India or the people he ruled over -- the people who had turned him into the world's richest man while they themselves were among the world's poorest.
Rashmun supports the pro-Pakistan king who gave the money of Indian peasants away to the government of Pakistan and wanted to leave India with a big hole in its middle. And he has the audacity to style himself as an Indian "nationalist." The Nizam was anything but an Indian nationalist, but Rashmun goes out of his way to defend this treacherous tyrant. If anything, the Nizam's enemies were the Indian nationalists, who forged an India that includes the heart of the Deccan. Indians like Rashmun wouldn't be able to talk about Dakhni if the Dakhan (anglicized as the Deccan) wasn't part of India as the Nizam wanted in his day-dreams, but for the efforts of the ordinary and brave people of Telangana, including my own ancestors who fought for its liberation from the tyrant. The Nizam was a much worse regionalist than Kayal Vizhi when it came to trying to fracture India, but Rashmun merrily supports him. Why is this? Rashmun, why do you support treacherous kings who wanted to disrupt the unity and integrity of India?
* Progressive students of the Nizam College, including my high-school headmaster, used to call the Nizam "His Exhausted Highness." Referring to the Nizam thusly on campus resulted in students being expelled, imprisoned and tortured. Such was the state of civil liberties in the state run by HEH the Nizam.
PS: Thanks to Max for posting the article from which I have pulled the picture above.
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
charvaka wrote:His Exalted Highness* Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad, the sovereign ruler -- under Pax Britannica -- of a territory larger than England, Wales and Scotland combined. In 1947, the Nizam, the seventh of his dynasty was the world's richest man and most of his subjects were among the world's poorest men and women. He had amassed indecent amounts of wealth, to the extent that Indian National Congress intellectuals found it difficult to support him -- although INC was the original organization of the bourgeoisie, and was then led by a rich Allahabadi whose great-grandfather was the very first vakIl (lawyer) of the East India Company at the Mughal court in Delhi (yes, I am talking about the ancestors of the venerable Jawaharlal Nehru for whom I have a great deal of respect).
When the time of reckoning came on August 15, 1947, Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was clear in what he wanted. He wanted to leave a gaping hole in the middle of India. He wanted independence, or he wanted to join Pakistan. He certainly did not want to join the Hindu-dominated Indian Union. On the very last day of his rule over Telangana, when the Indian army was less than 12 hours away from the city of Hyderabad, he sent instructions to his bank in London to transfer money from his government's account to that of Pakistan. Such was the loyalty of this "good king" to India or the people he ruled over -- the people who had turned him into the world's richest man while they themselves were among the world's poorest.
Rashmun supports the pro-Pakistan king who gave the money of Indian peasants away to the government of Pakistan and wanted to leave India with a big hole in its middle. And he has the audacity to style himself as an Indian "nationalist." The Nizam was anything but an Indian nationalist, but Rashmun goes out of his way to defend this treacherous tyrant. If anything, the Nizam's enemies were the Indian nationalists, who forged an India that includes the heart of the Deccan. Indians like Rashmun wouldn't be able to talk about Dakhni if the Dakhan (anglicized as the Deccan) wasn't part of India as the Nizam wanted in his day-dreams, but for the efforts of the ordinary and brave people of Telangana, including my own ancestors who fought for its liberation from the tyrant. The Nizam was a much worse regionalist than Kayal Vizhi when it came to trying to fracture India, but Rashmun merrily supports him. Why is this? Rashmun, why do you support treacherous kings who wanted to disrupt the unity and integrity of India?
* Progressive students of the Nizam College, including my high-school headmaster, used to call the Nizam "His Exhausted Highness." Referring to the Nizam thusly on campus resulted in students being expelled, imprisoned and tortured. Such was the state of civil liberties in the state run by HEH the Nizam.
PS: Thanks to Max for posting the article from which I have pulled the picture above.
Bcz he is a moghul-Paki loving Akbarite. He along with Maulana Merlot fall under the category of Roy - the confused amalgam - who form the 6th column in Inside India.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar- Posts : 17675
Join date : 2011-04-30
Age : 110
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
I am puzzled by Rashmun the Self-Proclaimed Nationalist's silence on this matter. Is Rashmun really an Indian nationalist, or is he someone who seeks to splinter India, much like his hero the Nizam?charvaka wrote:His Exalted Highness* Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad, the sovereign ruler -- under Pax Britannica -- of a territory larger than England, Wales and Scotland combined. In 1947, the Nizam, the seventh of his dynasty was the world's richest man and most of his subjects were among the world's poorest men and women. He had amassed indecent amounts of wealth, to the extent that Indian National Congress intellectuals found it difficult to support him -- although INC was the original organization of the bourgeoisie, and was then led by a rich Allahabadi whose great-grandfather was the very first vakIl (lawyer) of the East India Company at the Mughal court in Delhi (yes, I am talking about the ancestors of the venerable Jawaharlal Nehru for whom I have a great deal of respect).
When the time of reckoning came on August 15, 1947, Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was clear in what he wanted. He wanted to leave a gaping hole in the middle of India. He wanted independence, or he wanted to join Pakistan. He certainly did not want to join the Hindu-dominated Indian Union. On the very last day of his rule over Telangana, when the Indian army was less than 12 hours away from the city of Hyderabad, he sent instructions to his bank in London to transfer money from his government's account to that of Pakistan. Such was the loyalty of this "good king" to India or the people he ruled over -- the people who had turned him into the world's richest man while they themselves were among the world's poorest.
Rashmun supports the pro-Pakistan king who gave the money of Indian peasants away to the government of Pakistan and wanted to leave India with a big hole in its middle. And he has the audacity to style himself as an Indian "nationalist." The Nizam was anything but an Indian nationalist, but Rashmun goes out of his way to defend this treacherous tyrant. If anything, the Nizam's enemies were the Indian nationalists, who forged an India that includes the heart of the Deccan. Indians like Rashmun wouldn't be able to talk about Dakhni if the Dakhan (anglicized as the Deccan) wasn't part of India as the Nizam wanted in his day-dreams, but for the efforts of the ordinary and brave people of Telangana, including my own ancestors who fought for its liberation from the tyrant. The Nizam was a much worse regionalist than Kayal Vizhi when it came to trying to fracture India, but Rashmun merrily supports him. Why is this? Rashmun, why do you support treacherous kings who wanted to disrupt the unity and integrity of India?
* Progressive students of the Nizam College, including my high-school headmaster, used to call the Nizam "His Exhausted Highness." Referring to the Nizam thusly on campus resulted in students being expelled, imprisoned and tortured. Such was the state of civil liberties in the state run by HEH the Nizam.
PS: Thanks to Max for posting the article from which I have pulled the picture above.
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
I have nothing to add to this thread as all I've read is three articles from the Hindu, local telephone directory (NiA to NiZ), troll blogs, Cricinfo & the local yellow-papers.
Plus my own research with a sample size of 1.
Just wanted to opine that I just saved a bunch of money by switching my car insurance to Geico.
And my I'm willing to change my opinion if proven otherwise.
Plus my own research with a sample size of 1.
Just wanted to opine that I just saved a bunch of money by switching my car insurance to Geico.
And my I'm willing to change my opinion if proven otherwise.
Guest- Guest
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
. If you did all the things you listed, I think you have a more nuanced understanding already of what happened in Telangana than Rashmun does.Richard Hed wrote:I have nothing to add to this thread as all I've read is three articles from the Hindu, local telephone directory (NiA to NiZ), troll blogs, Cricinfo & the local yellow-papers.
Plus my own research with a sample size of 1.
Just wanted to opine that I just saved a bunch of money by switching my car insurance to Geico.
And my I'm willing to change my opinion if proven otherwise.
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
The patriots of Telangana who fought the Nizam and his Razakars were much better nationalists than Rashmun. While they gave their lives and blood for the integration of Telangana with India, Rashmun justifies the Nizam's attempts to splinter India by leaving a big hole in its middle to be independent or part of Pakistan.
Rashmun: It is also not surprising that the Nizam tried to preserve his powers instead of unilaterally handing over his state to India... They were simply trying to preserve and protect Hyderabad from being absorbed by India.
Rashmun, do you believe that your "good king" Nizam should have been allowed to keep Hyderabad outside India or merged with Pakistan? Be honest now.
Rashmun: It is also not surprising that the Nizam tried to preserve his powers instead of unilaterally handing over his state to India... They were simply trying to preserve and protect Hyderabad from being absorbed by India.
Rashmun, do you believe that your "good king" Nizam should have been allowed to keep Hyderabad outside India or merged with Pakistan? Be honest now.
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
charvaka wrote:His Exalted Highness* Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad, the sovereign ruler -- under Pax Britannica -- of a territory larger than England, Wales and Scotland combined. In 1947, the Nizam, the seventh of his dynasty was the world's richest man and most of his subjects were among the world's poorest men and women. He had amassed indecent amounts of wealth, to the extent that Indian National Congress intellectuals found it difficult to support him -- although INC was the original organization of the bourgeoisie, and was then led by a rich Allahabadi whose great-grandfather was the very first vakIl (lawyer) of the East India Company at the Mughal court in Delhi (yes, I am talking about the ancestors of the venerable Jawaharlal Nehru for whom I have a great deal of respect).
When the time of reckoning came on August 15, 1947, Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was clear in what he wanted. He wanted to leave a gaping hole in the middle of India. He wanted independence, or he wanted to join Pakistan. He certainly did not want to join the Hindu-dominated Indian Union. On the very last day of his rule over Telangana, when the Indian army was less than 12 hours away from the city of Hyderabad, he sent instructions to his bank in London to transfer money from his government's account to that of Pakistan. Such was the loyalty of this "good king" to India or the people he ruled over -- the people who had turned him into the world's richest man while they themselves were among the world's poorest.
Rashmun supports the pro-Pakistan king who gave the money of Indian peasants away to the government of Pakistan and wanted to leave India with a big hole in its middle. And he has the audacity to style himself as an Indian "nationalist." The Nizam was anything but an Indian nationalist, but Rashmun goes out of his way to defend this treacherous tyrant. If anything, the Nizam's enemies were the Indian nationalists, who forged an India that includes the heart of the Deccan. Indians like Rashmun wouldn't be able to talk about Dakhni if the Dakhan (anglicized as the Deccan) wasn't part of India as the Nizam wanted in his day-dreams, but for the efforts of the ordinary and brave people of Telangana, including my own ancestors who fought for its liberation from the tyrant. The Nizam was a much worse regionalist than Kayal Vizhi when it came to trying to fracture India, but Rashmun merrily supports him. Why is this? Rashmun, why do you support treacherous kings who wanted to disrupt the unity and integrity of India?
* Progressive students of the Nizam College, including my high-school headmaster, used to call the Nizam "His Exhausted Highness." Referring to the Nizam thusly on campus resulted in students being expelled, imprisoned and tortured. Such was the state of civil liberties in the state run by HEH the Nizam.
PS: Thanks to Max for posting the article from which I have pulled the picture above.
blah blah blah.. I didn't read any of the above. All I know from the internets is that he is a book lover. That is enough for me to pronounce that he is good guy in 1920-1930.
1940 was a whole another decade. Kings can't be good all the time you see. They pick and choose decades.
doofus_maximus- Posts : 1903
Join date : 2011-04-29
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
Here are a couple of other accomplishments of the treacherous king.
1. Smuggling of arms from Pakistan into Hyderabad state. The Nizam hired British pilots to fly planes with arms into Hyderabad. This occurred at the same time that the India was fighting a war against Pakistan over Kashmir.
2. Giving Rs. 20 crore in taxpayer money to Pakistan. Again, while India was fighting a war against Pakistan. According to Pakistani sources, that 20 crore helped save Pakistan from going bankrupt in its first year.
Patriotic nationalists of India should totally praise, support, defend and hero-worship this Nizam!
1. Smuggling of arms from Pakistan into Hyderabad state. The Nizam hired British pilots to fly planes with arms into Hyderabad. This occurred at the same time that the India was fighting a war against Pakistan over Kashmir.
2. Giving Rs. 20 crore in taxpayer money to Pakistan. Again, while India was fighting a war against Pakistan. According to Pakistani sources, that 20 crore helped save Pakistan from going bankrupt in its first year.
Patriotic nationalists of India should totally praise, support, defend and hero-worship this Nizam!
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
Rashmun, what do you think of these accomplishments of the Nizam "Good King" ul-Mulk? Like-a no like-a?
1. Starts private army to terrorize the people, check
2. Smuggles arms from Pakistan while India is at war with that country, check
3. Gives money to Pakistan to keep it from going bankrupt while India is at war with that country, check
4. When Indian forces are at the gate, transfers taxpayer money to Pakistan in a last-ditch effort to rob the people of India, check
1. Starts private army to terrorize the people, check
2. Smuggles arms from Pakistan while India is at war with that country, check
3. Gives money to Pakistan to keep it from going bankrupt while India is at war with that country, check
4. When Indian forces are at the gate, transfers taxpayer money to Pakistan in a last-ditch effort to rob the people of India, check
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
I wonder why no replies to this thread from him?
Is Osmania University named after this king? Unfortunately in high school, not much was there about this king as Akbar/moghul were covered mostly our History books.
Is Osmania University named after this king? Unfortunately in high school, not much was there about this king as Akbar/moghul were covered mostly our History books.
FluteHolder- Posts : 2355
Join date : 2011-06-03
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
Haha.FluteHolder wrote:I wonder why no replies to this thread from him?
Yes, the university was started as Jamia Osmania -- Osman's university -- in the late 1910s. It was India's first university to teach in an Indian language: Urdu, a language which only the minority elite (the rich landowning class of both religions) could read and write. (Benares Hindu University and Aligarh Muslim University which predate it used English as the medium of instruction. The older Nizam College, which taught in English, was affiliated with the Madras University until liberation.) The languages of the poor -- Telugu, Kannada and Marathi -- were not represented. The campus, which in those days was just the current Arts College building, was built around 1922-'23. Back then he used to ban newspapers and such, so there are not many accounts of those troubled times. Telangana was undergoing famine at the time. His ancestors had a tradition of waiving tax dues from the diwani section of the state (about half of the land) during famines, to help the people cope with bad conditions. The generous Nizam refused to do this -- one of the earlier acts in his long reign that antagonized the poor people. His ruse for refusing to waive taxes was the need to fund the construction of the university; the people saw through the excuse particularly because the university wouldn't benefit them.FluteHolder wrote:Is Osmania University named after this king?
Writers of Indian history books share my mindset that one ought to emphasize the generous side of historical figures. Now, for some rulers like Ashoka, Harshavardhana, Akbar and Krishnadevaraya, their generous sides represented a significant fraction of the circumference of their mental maps; so there was enough to talk about them in history textbooks. For HEH the Nizam, that fraction was a lot smaller (see picture below); hence there wasn't enough to cover in the textbooks. It is quite unfortunate, really.FluteHolder wrote:Unfortunately in high school, not much was there about this king as Akbar/moghul were covered mostly our History books.
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
It looks like the urge to spread Nizami propaganda has needed scratching again. Rashmun's steadfast silence on the questions raised here is noteworthy.
It is one thing for Rashmun to hate me and want to post things that I disagree with. That is totally understandable. But to eagerly praise a guy who terrorized his own people, who aided Pakistan with money and arms when it was at war with India, that is beyond comprehension.
It is one thing for Rashmun to hate me and want to post things that I disagree with. That is totally understandable. But to eagerly praise a guy who terrorized his own people, who aided Pakistan with money and arms when it was at war with India, that is beyond comprehension.
Idéfix- Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
Bumping this for the benefit of the modern day apologists of the treacherous king.
Idéfix- Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
panini press wrote:Bumping this for the benefit of the modern day apologists of the treacherous king.
( बूढ़े ) कुत्ते की धुम कभि सीधी नहीं होती !
Hellsangel- Posts : 14721
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/why-wealth-of-hyderabad-nizam-s-heirs-depends-on-pakistan-245545
Petrichor- Posts : 1725
Join date : 2012-04-10
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
http://translate.google.com/#hi/en/%28%20%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%82%E0%A5%9D%E0%A5%87%20%29%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%AE%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%20!Hellsangel wrote:panini press wrote:Bumping this for the benefit of the modern day apologists of the treacherous king.
( बूढ़े ) कुत्ते की धुम कभि सीधी नहीं होती !
???
MaxEntropy_Man- Posts : 14702
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: The treacherous king and his modern-day apologists
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://translate.google.com/#hi/en/%28%20%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%82%E0%A5%9D%E0%A5%87%20%29%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%AE%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%20!Hellsangel wrote:panini press wrote:Bumping this for the benefit of the modern day apologists of the treacherous king.
( बूढ़े ) कुत्ते की धुम कभि सीधी नहीं होती !
???
It is दुम not धुम and कभी not कभि
Hellsangel- Posts : 14721
Join date : 2011-04-28
Similar topics
» Love for Treacherous King spreads to REDDIT.
» When you can't be king (or queen), try to play king-maker
» For iSlamo-Apologists
» Muslim Apologists on SuCH should protest
» Another Challenge for the Islamic Apologists of SuCH
» When you can't be king (or queen), try to play king-maker
» For iSlamo-Apologists
» Muslim Apologists on SuCH should protest
» Another Challenge for the Islamic Apologists of SuCH
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum