Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

panini press wrote:

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

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

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 -- and highlight in red -- his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.

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.

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.

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.

panini press wrote:The latest argument for the Nizam being a "liberal" is that he was friends with a guy who was a Hindu, but for political expediency had to claim to be a sufi. The idea is that sufism is closer to Hinduism than it is to Islam, so being frends with such a guy makes the Nizam a "liberal."

Now, brace yourself for the big comparison. In contrast with the Nizam, who was merely friends with a guy who wasn't quite a sufi but claimed to be one, Aurangzeb himself was a sufi.

---

http://www.wichaar.com/news/315/ARTICLE/27481/2011-09-09.html

Aurangzeb was a Sufi and followed the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi method of Sufism. He was a direct disciple of Khwaja Muhammad Masoom, the third son and successor of the founder of Mujaddidi order Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi. His letters to his shaykh and the replies from him show that he was highly devoted to him and followed him in every matter of his life and rule.

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:The latest argument for the Nizam being a "liberal" is that he was friends with a guy who was a Hindu, but for political expediency had to claim to be a sufi. The idea is that sufism is closer to Hinduism than it is to Islam, so being frends with such a guy makes the Nizam a "liberal."

Now, brace yourself for the big comparison. In contrast with the Nizam, who was merely friends with a guy who wasn't quite a sufi but claimed to be one, Aurangzeb himself was a sufi.

---

http://www.wichaar.com/news/315/ARTICLE/27481/2011-09-09.html

Aurangzeb was a Sufi and followed the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi method of Sufism. He was a direct disciple of Khwaja Muhammad Masoom, the third son and successor of the founder of Mujaddidi order Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi. His letters to his shaykh and the replies from him show that he was highly devoted to him and followed him in every matter of his life and rule.

Let that information sink in. Aurangzeb was more of a Hindu than he was a Muslim. Think about it.

panini press wrote:Here is another piece of information. Did you know that Aurangzeb was at least 3/8ths Hindu? Nizam was not 3/8ths Hindu. Another way in which Aurangzeb is more secular. Aurangzeb's great-grandmother and grandmother on his father's side were both Hindu Rajputs, which made his father Shah Jahan 3/4ths Hindu.

panini press wrote: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 10.

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
Was a sufi (i.e. closer to Hindu than to Muslim)	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
Is at least 3/8ths Hindu	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: (10-2)*2 - 6 = 10.

Note 10: Added line for sufism.

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

.

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 -- and highlight in red -- his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.

.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

.

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:The latest argument for the Nizam being a "liberal" is that he was friends with a guy who was a Hindu, but for political expediency had to claim to be a sufi. The idea is that sufism is closer to Hinduism than it is to Islam, so being frends with such a guy makes the Nizam a "liberal."

Now, brace yourself for the big comparison. In contrast with the Nizam, who was merely friends with a guy who wasn't quite a sufi but claimed to be one, Aurangzeb himself was a sufi.

---

http://www.wichaar.com/news/315/ARTICLE/27481/2011-09-09.html

Aurangzeb was a Sufi and followed the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi method of Sufism. He was a direct disciple of Khwaja Muhammad Masoom, the third son and successor of the founder of Mujaddidi order Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi. His letters to his shaykh and the replies from him show that he was highly devoted to him and followed him in every matter of his life and rule.

Let that information sink in. Aurangzeb was more of a Hindu than he was a Muslim. Think about it.

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

.

.

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 -- and highlight in red -- his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.

.

.

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.

.

.

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.

.

.

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.

.

.

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:The latest argument for the Nizam being a "liberal" is that he was friends with a guy who was a Hindu, but for political expediency had to claim to be a sufi. The idea is that sufism is closer to Hinduism than it is to Islam, so being frends with such a guy makes the Nizam a "liberal."

Now, brace yourself for the big comparison. In contrast with the Nizam, who was merely friends with a guy who wasn't quite a sufi but claimed to be one, Aurangzeb himself was a sufi.

---

http://www.wichaar.com/news/315/ARTICLE/27481/2011-09-09.html

Aurangzeb was a Sufi and followed the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi method of Sufism. He was a direct disciple of Khwaja Muhammad Masoom, the third son and successor of the founder of Mujaddidi order Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi. His letters to his shaykh and the replies from him show that he was highly devoted to him and followed him in every matter of his life and rule.

Let that information sink in. Aurangzeb was more of a Hindu than he was a Muslim. Think about it.

.

panini press wrote:Here is another piece of information. Did you know that Aurangzeb was at least 3/8ths Hindu? Nizam was not 3/8ths Hindu. Another way in which Aurangzeb is more secular. Aurangzeb's great-grandmother and grandmother on his father's side were both Hindu Rajputs, which made his father Shah Jahan 3/4ths Hindu. Therefore, Aurangzeb is more Hindu than the Nizam.

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:Here is another piece of information. Did you know that Aurangzeb was at least 3/8ths Hindu? Nizam was not 3/8ths Hindu. Another way in which Aurangzeb is more secular. Aurangzeb's great-grandmother and grandmother on his father's side were both Hindu Rajputs, which made his father Shah Jahan 3/4ths Hindu. Therefore, Aurangzeb is more Hindu than the Nizam.

.

Rashmun wrote:freemasons expelled anders from their organization after he went berserk. the man was mentally ill. do not compare him to Nizam.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:freemasons expelled anders from their organization after he went berserk. the man was mentally ill. do not compare him to Nizam.

Anders went berserk. Nizam only lost his head. There is no comparison.

Rashmun wrote:freemasons expelled anders from their organization after he went berserk. the man was mentally ill. do not compare him to Nizam.

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

.

.

.

panini press wrote:

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 -- and highlight in red -- his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.

.

.

.

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.

.

.

.

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.

.

.

.

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.

.

.

.