Re: Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:27 pm

On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years.

Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti- Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal-minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decisions to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:28 pm

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 12 Captur20

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 12 Nizam-10

As you can see from the pictures above, there are significant differences between Aurangzeb and the Nizam. I am going to highlight those differences.

1. Miserly side: Aurangzeb's miserly side is a tad longer than Nizam's. Aurangzeb wins this one, but barely.

2. Philandering side: Aurangzeb's philandering side is tiny compared to the Nizam's. The Nizam wins this one by a lot.

3. Generous side: While the Nizam has a prominent generous side, Aurangzeb has him beat in this department. Sorry Nizam.

4. Treacherous side: Aurangzeb showed excellent potential in this department in his early years, but once he became top dog, he lost some of his treacherous edge. He was awesome at treachery when he fought his father and brothers. But the Nizam beats him easily with his support for Pakistan when India was at war with that ocuntry.

5. Deceitful side: There is no clear winner on this one. Both about the same.

6. Power-hungry side: The Nizam was no pushover when it came to hunger for power, but he can't hold a candle to Aurangzeb the Great in this department. Aurangzeb killed his own brothers to secure his hold on power. Nizam had no such luck; Aurangzeb wins.

7. Communal side: Aurangzeb has the stronger reputation for having a well-developed communal side, but that is only because the Nizam is not well-known outside Telangana. When evaluated on facts, it is clear that the Nizam has a much more elongated communal side than Aurangzeb. https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p400-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67528

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:28 pm

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 6.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Abolished sati to protect Hindu women	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Inspired Bollywood to name movie after him	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Patronized paintings	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Inspired BW, a Hindu, to cook	No	Yes	Nizam
Traveled by airplane	No	Yes	Nizam
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Note 4: When I made the last revision, I was a little unfair to the Nizam. I said, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communal x 10. But that was before, when the temple building in Chitrakoot was an advantage for Aurangzeb. Now that both candidates are tied on that, I revised my comparison above. (Again, see how fair I am to the Nizam when facts are presented.)

Note 5: Added a line for Aurangzeb's firman. Also added Aurangzeb's ban on sati.

Note 6: Added a line about inspiring Bollywood movies.

Note 7: Added a line about paintings.

Note 8: Added a line about inspiring BW to cook. Revised comparison factor to 8 down from 10.

Note 9: Added air travel line. New method for computing comparison factor: (number of items for Aurangzeb - number of items for Nizam) * 2 - number of items where they are the same. Applying this highly scientific method, we get: (8-2)*2 - 6 = 6.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:30 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.
He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:30 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.
He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:30 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.
He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:30 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.
He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739
.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:31 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739
.
.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.

He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:35 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:After independence, the Nizam should have had the foresight to merge his state with India. But probably due to the poor advise he received from his foolish advisors he thought he might be able to make his state independent.
After he became king, Aurangzeb should had the foresight to not impose jaziya. But probably due to the poor advice he received from his foolish advisers he thought he might be able to get away with it.

If "poor advice" from "foolish advisers" is a reasonable justification for the Razakar massacres, then it is a reasonable justification also for the excesses of Aurangzeb and Hitler.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:35 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is important to note that the razakars also included hindus, but since hindus were in the majority in the Nizam's state their targets (those who wanted the Nizam's state to merge with India) were also frequently hindus.
It is important to note that Aurangzeb's army also included Hindus, but since Hindus were in the majority in Aurangzeb's state their targets (those who wanted an Islamic state in India) were also frequently Hindus.

Again, the sort of justification offered here for the behavior of the Nizam's private army can also be used to defend Aurangzeb. If Rashmun wants to be logically consistent, he should defend both Aurangzeb and the Nizam.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:36 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be said that the razakars were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of the state of hyderabad, for the preservation of the state of hyderabad.
It could be said that Aurangzeb's army were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of hte Mughal state, for the preservation of the Mughal state.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:36 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the reason the razakars could not possibly have been targeting only hindus is because many muslims had also joined the struggle to merge the state of hyderabad with India and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of the razakars.
The reason Aurangzeb could not possible have been targeting only Hindus is because many Muslims also were opposed to the Mughal empire and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of Aurangzeb.

In fact, Aurangzeb attacked the Muslim state of Golconda and conquered it through treachery. It is as a result of that treacherous conquest that the Nizams came to rule Hyderabad in the first place!

This makes Aurangzeb secular.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:36 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:to those who oppose the Nizam unequivocally i would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.
To those who oppose Aurangzeb unequivocally, I would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

Also, I do not oppose the Nizam unequivocally. In my chart of the Nizam's mental map, I clearly acknowledge his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:37 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka's argument is nonsensical because it is the Nizam's army which should be compared to Aurangzeb's army. Nizam's army never targeted any hindu (or muslim) who wanted to merge the state with India. Nizam did not have direct control over razakars. Furthermore, razakars included hindus.
Razakars included members of the Nizam's (hahaha) army. The Nizam's army actively participated in the attacks on villages. As the famous song goes, "pOlIusu miltri renDu balavantulAnukOni, nuvvu pallelokostivi koDuko naizAmu sarkarODA" -- you thought your police and military were strong and came into our villages. Later the song says, "nI miltri pAripoyerO" -- your army ran away.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:37 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:After independence, the Nizam should have had the foresight to merge his state with India. But probably due to the poor advise he received from his foolish advisors he thought he might be able to make his state independent.
After he became king, Aurangzeb should had the foresight to not impose jaziya. But probably due to the poor advice he received from his foolish advisers he thought he might be able to get away with it.

If "poor advice" from "foolish advisers" is a reasonable justification for the Razakar massacres, then it is a reasonable justification also for the excesses of Aurangzeb and Hitler.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:38 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is important to note that the razakars also included hindus, but since hindus were in the majority in the Nizam's state their targets (those who wanted the Nizam's state to merge with India) were also frequently hindus.
It is important to note that Aurangzeb's army also included Hindus, but since Hindus were in the majority in Aurangzeb's state their targets (those who wanted an Islamic state in India) were also frequently Hindus.

Again, the sort of justification offered here for the behavior of the Nizam's private army can also be used to defend Aurangzeb. If Rashmun wants to be logically consistent, he should defend both Aurangzeb and the Nizam.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:38 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be said that the razakars were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of the state of hyderabad, for the preservation of the state of hyderabad.
It could be said that Aurangzeb's army were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of hte Mughal state, for the preservation of the Mughal state.

.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:38 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the reason the razakars could not possibly have been targeting only hindus is because many muslims had also joined the struggle to merge the state of hyderabad with India and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of the razakars.
The reason Aurangzeb could not possible have been targeting only Hindus is because many Muslims also were opposed to the Mughal empire and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of Aurangzeb.

In fact, Aurangzeb attacked the Muslim state of Golconda and conquered it through treachery. It is as a result of that treacherous conquest that the Nizams came to rule Hyderabad in the first place!

This makes Aurangzeb secular.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:39 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:to those who oppose the Nizam unequivocally i would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.
To those who oppose Aurangzeb unequivocally, I would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

Also, I do not oppose the Nizam unequivocally. In my chart of the Nizam's mental map, I clearly acknowledge his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:40 pm

Rashmun wrote:to those who oppose the Nizam unequivocally i would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

To those who oppose Aurangzeb unequivocally, I would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

Also, I do not oppose the Nizam unequivocally. In my chart of the Nizam's mental map, I clearly acknowledge his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:41 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be said that the razakars were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of the state of hyderabad, for the preservation of the state of hyderabad.
It could be said that Aurangzeb's army were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of hte Mughal state, for the preservation of the Mughal state.

.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:After independence, the Nizam should have had the foresight to merge his state with India. But probably due to the poor advise he received from his foolish advisors he thought he might be able to make his state independent.

After he became king, Aurangzeb should have had the foresight to not impose jaziya. But probably due to the poor advice he received from his foolish advisers he thought he might be able to get away with it.

If "poor advice" from "foolish advisers" is a reasonable justification for the Razakar massacres, then it is a reasonable justification also for the excesses of Aurangzeb and Hitler.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:the reason the razakars could not possibly have been targeting only hindus is because many muslims had also joined the struggle to merge the state of hyderabad with India and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of the razakars.

The reason Aurangzeb could not possibly have been targeting only Hindus is because many Muslims also were opposed to the Mughal empire and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of Aurangzeb.

In fact, Aurangzeb attacked the Muslim state of Golconda and conquered it through treachery. It is as a result of that treacherous conquest that the Nizams came to rule Hyderabad in the first place!

This makes Aurangzeb secular.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:It could be said that the razakars were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of the state of hyderabad, for the preservation of the state of hyderabad.

It could be said that Aurangzeb's army were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of hte Mughal state, for the preservation of the Mughal state.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka's argument is nonsensical because it is the Nizam's army which should be compared to Aurangzeb's army. Nizam's army never targeted any hindu (or muslim) who wanted to merge the state with India. Nizam did not have direct control over razakars. Furthermore, razakars included hindus.

Razakars included members of the Nizam's (hahaha) army. The Nizam's army actively participated in the attacks on villages. As the famous song goes, "pOlIusu miltri renDu balavantulAnukOni, nuvvu pallelokostivi koDuko naizAmu sarkarODA" -- you thought your police and military were strong and came into our villages. Later the song says, "nI miltri pAripoyerO" -- your army ran away.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:49 pm

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka's argument is nonsensical because it is the Nizam's army which should be compared to Aurangzeb's army. Nizam's army never targeted any hindu (or muslim) who wanted to merge the state with India. Nizam did not have direct control over razakars. Furthermore, razakars included hindus.

Razakars included members of the Nizam's (hahaha) army. The Nizam's army actively participated in the attacks on villages. As the famous song goes, "pOlIusu miltri renDu balavantulAnukOni, nuvvu pallelokostivi koDuko naizAmu sarkarODA" -- you thought your police and military were strong and came into our villages. Later the song says, "nI miltri pAripoyerO" -- your army ran away.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:50 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.
He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:50 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka's argument is nonsensical because it is the Nizam's army which should be compared to Aurangzeb's army. Nizam's army never targeted any hindu (or muslim) who wanted to merge the state with India. Nizam did not have direct control over razakars. Furthermore, razakars included hindus.
Razakars included members of the Nizam's (hahaha) army. The Nizam's army actively participated in the attacks on villages. As the famous song goes, "pOlIusu miltri renDu balavantulAnukOni, nuvvu pallelokostivi koDuko naizAmu sarkarODA" -- you thought your police and military were strong and came into our villages. Later the song says, "nI miltri pAripoyerO" -- your army ran away.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:50 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be said that the razakars were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of the state of hyderabad, for the preservation of the state of hyderabad.
It could be said that Aurangzeb's army were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of hte Mughal state, for the preservation of the Mughal state.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:51 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the reason the razakars could not possibly have been targeting only hindus is because many muslims had also joined the struggle to merge the state of hyderabad with India and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of the razakars.
The reason Aurangzeb could not possibly have been targeting only Hindus is because many Muslims also were opposed to the Mughal empire and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of Aurangzeb.

In fact, Aurangzeb attacked the Muslim state of Golconda and conquered it through treachery. It is as a result of that treacherous conquest that the Nizams came to rule Hyderabad in the first place!

This makes Aurangzeb secular.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:51 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:After independence, the Nizam should have had the foresight to merge his state with India. But probably due to the poor advise he received from his foolish advisors he thought he might be able to make his state independent.
After he became king, Aurangzeb should have had the foresight to not impose jaziya. But probably due to the poor advice he received from his foolish advisers he thought he might be able to get away with it.

If "poor advice" from "foolish advisers" is a reasonable justification for the Razakar massacres, then it is a reasonable justification also for the excesses of Aurangzeb and Hitler.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:51 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:to those who oppose the Nizam unequivocally i would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.
To those who oppose Aurangzeb unequivocally, I would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

Also, I do not oppose the Nizam unequivocally. In my chart of the Nizam's mental map, I clearly acknowledge his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:52 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.
He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:52 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka's argument is nonsensical because it is the Nizam's army which should be compared to Aurangzeb's army. Nizam's army never targeted any hindu (or muslim) who wanted to merge the state with India. Nizam did not have direct control over razakars. Furthermore, razakars included hindus.
Razakars included members of the Nizam's (hahaha) army. The Nizam's army actively participated in the attacks on villages. As the famous song goes, "pOlIusu miltri renDu balavantulAnukOni, nuvvu pallelokostivi koDuko naizAmu sarkarODA" -- you thought your police and military were strong and came into our villages. Later the song says, "nI miltri pAripoyerO" -- your army ran away.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:53 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be said that the razakars were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of the state of hyderabad, for the preservation of the state of hyderabad.
It could be said that Aurangzeb's army were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of hte Mughal state, for the preservation of the Mughal state.

.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:53 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the reason the razakars could not possibly have been targeting only hindus is because many muslims had also joined the struggle to merge the state of hyderabad with India and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of the razakars.
The reason Aurangzeb could not possibly have been targeting only Hindus is because many Muslims also were opposed to the Mughal empire and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of Aurangzeb.

In fact, Aurangzeb attacked the Muslim state of Golconda and conquered it through treachery. It is as a result of that treacherous conquest that the Nizams came to rule Hyderabad in the first place!

This makes Aurangzeb secular.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:54 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:to those who oppose the Nizam unequivocally i would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.
To those who oppose Aurangzeb unequivocally, I would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

Also, I do not oppose the Nizam unequivocally. In my chart of the Nizam's mental map, I clearly acknowledge his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:54 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka's argument is nonsensical because it is the Nizam's army which should be compared to Aurangzeb's army. Nizam's army never targeted any hindu (or muslim) who wanted to merge the state with India. Nizam did not have direct control over razakars. Furthermore, razakars included hindus.
Razakars included members of the Nizam's (hahaha) army. The Nizam's army actively participated in the attacks on villages. As the famous song goes, "pOlIusu miltri renDu balavantulAnukOni, nuvvu pallelokostivi koDuko naizAmu sarkarODA" -- you thought your police and military were strong and came into our villages. Later the song says, "nI miltri pAripoyerO" -- your army ran away.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:54 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.
He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:55 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be said that the razakars were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of the state of hyderabad, for the preservation of the state of hyderabad.
It could be said that Aurangzeb's army were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of hte Mughal state, for the preservation of the Mughal state.

.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:55 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the reason the razakars could not possibly have been targeting only hindus is because many muslims had also joined the struggle to merge the state of hyderabad with India and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of the razakars.
The reason Aurangzeb could not possibly have been targeting only Hindus is because many Muslims also were opposed to the Mughal empire and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of Aurangzeb.

In fact, Aurangzeb attacked the Muslim state of Golconda and conquered it through treachery. It is as a result of that treacherous conquest that the Nizams came to rule Hyderabad in the first place!

This makes Aurangzeb secular.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:56 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:to those who oppose the Nizam unequivocally i would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.
To those who oppose Aurangzeb unequivocally, I would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

Also, I do not oppose the Nizam unequivocally. In my chart of the Nizam's mental map, I clearly acknowledge his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:56 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka's argument is nonsensical because it is the Nizam's army which should be compared to Aurangzeb's army. Nizam's army never targeted any hindu (or muslim) who wanted to merge the state with India. Nizam did not have direct control over razakars. Furthermore, razakars included hindus.
Razakars included members of the Nizam's (hahaha) army. The Nizam's army actively participated in the attacks on villages. As the famous song goes, "pOlIusu miltri renDu balavantulAnukOni, nuvvu pallelokostivi koDuko naizAmu sarkarODA" -- you thought your police and military were strong and came into our villages. Later the song says, "nI miltri pAripoyerO" -- your army ran away.
.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:56 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.
He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:57 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It could be said that the razakars were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of the state of hyderabad, for the preservation of the state of hyderabad.
It could be said that Aurangzeb's army were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of hte Mughal state, for the preservation of the Mughal state.

.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:58 pm

panini press wrote:On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years.

Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti- Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal-minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decisions to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:59 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the reason the razakars could not possibly have been targeting only hindus is because many muslims had also joined the struggle to merge the state of hyderabad with India and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of the razakars.
The reason Aurangzeb could not possibly have been targeting only Hindus is because many Muslims also were opposed to the Mughal empire and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of Aurangzeb.

In fact, Aurangzeb attacked the Muslim state of Golconda and conquered it through treachery. It is as a result of that treacherous conquest that the Nizams came to rule Hyderabad in the first place!

This makes Aurangzeb secular.
.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:00 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:to those who oppose the Nizam unequivocally i would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.
To those who oppose Aurangzeb unequivocally, I would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

Also, I do not oppose the Nizam unequivocally. In my chart of the Nizam's mental map, I clearly acknowledge his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:01 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:Rashmun has run out of arguments why jaziya is communal. With that goes the claim of Aurangzeb being communal. He may be afraid of acknowledging this, but if Nizam is secular, Aurangzeb is certainly secular.
.

Rashmun, don't be afraid of the consequences of your own methods. Either change your methods and conclusions with both the Nizam and Aurangzeb, or embrace them both as heroes.

by Sponsored content