Re: Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:15 am

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Aurangzeb into the 15th page of his SuCH career. This is a great accomplishment. It is on this page that he surpasses the Nizam.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:16 am

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Captur20

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:16 am

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.

Note 11: Added line for being at least 3/8ths Hindu.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:17 am

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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:17 am

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.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:17 am

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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:18 am

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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:18 am

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.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:19 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:panini press, please add another item to the check list and see how many neighbors both nizam and aurangazeb antagonized. please count how many ppl said nice nice things about both of them respectively. estimation is ok, adjusting for population growth between their respective periods.

Just saw this because of my frenetic copy-paste activity. I will act on this soon.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:20 am

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.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:20 am

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

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:37 am

Rashmun has just clarified that Indian sufism is a sect of Hinduism. This is good information for Aurangzeb.

Rashmun wrote: in my opinion Indian sufism should be considered a hindu sect.

This means that Aurangzeb was a Hindu.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:44 am

The "refined version" of the above is that Aurangzeb had no religion. Can anyone possibly be more secular than Aurangzeb? Even Akbar had a religion, called din-i-ilahi. Aurangzeb, by being a sufi, at a refined level, had no religion!

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:45 am

Another aspect of the "Refined Version" is that Aurangzeb is indistinguishable from Hindu mystics.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:12 pm

Aurangzeb patronized paintings while Nizam did not. That makes him more secular than Nizam.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:13 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:When you looked at the picture above, you no doubt wondered, "what does that good-looking man look like in profile?" Wonder no more. Here is the answer.

Question for connoisseurs of Mughal paintings: is that the emperor's hair emerging from the back of his generous hat, or is it a peacock feather?

.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:13 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:Here is the full picture version of the above profile. Notice the halo around his head. As you know, halos are depicted around the heads of Hindu gods. If Aurangzeb was not secular, would he have allowed a halo to be shown around his head? Think, think!

.
.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:14 pm

panini press wrote:Another picture of Aurangzeb in action. As you can see, there is a temple in the background which Aurangzeb has not destroyed.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:14 pm

panini press wrote:Time for some more pictures...

Aurangzeb on the peacock throne. Note that peacock is a Hindu motif. Aurangzeb's throne itself was secular, and he sits happily on it.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:17 pm

Now, let us compare how Aurangzeb and Nizam spent their respective final days as absolute monarch.

Aurangzeb:
- prepared to get buried in the courtyard of a Sufi (i.e. Hindu in crude version, and non-religious in refined version) shrine
- regretted some of the mistakes he made

Nizam:
- moved Hyderabad taxpayers' money into an account to help Pakistan that was at war with India
- tried his best to help Pakistan in its war with India over Kashmir

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:46 pm

More details on Nizam's treachery.

https://such.forumotion.com/t5863-the-treacherous-king-and-his-modern-day-apologists

Note Rashmun's studied silence on that thread.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:47 pm

charvaka wrote: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!

https://such.forumotion.com/t5863-the-treacherous-king-and-his-modern-day-apologists#46417

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:47 pm

https://such.forumotion.com/t5863-the-treacherous-king-and-his-modern-day-apologists#63235

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.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:55 pm

It is important to note that after his death, Aurangzeb was buried at a Sufi (i.e. Hindu in crude version, non-religious in refined version) shrine.

It is also important to note that Aurangzeb is held in very high esteem by some Indians, more than 300 years after his death.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:55 pm

panini press wrote:Of all the men who sat upon the throne in Delhi no name evokes such an image of somber grandeur as that of Aurangzeb.

http://www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/aurangzib.html

It is worth noting that Aurangzeb's name evokes a higher-resolution, higher-color-density, sharper-focus, better-exposed image of somber grandeur than that of Akbar. If Aurangzeb was communal, this would not have been the case with his image.

This proves my point about Aurangzeb's legacy.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:56 pm

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.

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Small

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Small

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.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:57 pm

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?

https://such.forumotion.com/t5863-the-treacherous-king-and-his-modern-day-apologists#46201

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:57 pm

https://such.forumotion.com/t5863-the-treacherous-king-and-his-modern-day-apologists#46209

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.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:57 pm

https://such.forumotion.com/t5863-the-treacherous-king-and-his-modern-day-apologists#46454

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

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:24 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:Of all the men who sat upon the throne in Delhi no name evokes such an image of somber grandeur as that of Aurangzeb.

http://www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/aurangzib.html

It is worth noting that Aurangzeb's name evokes a higher-resolution, higher-color-density, sharper-focus, better-exposed image of somber grandeur than that of Akbar. If Aurangzeb was communal, this would not have been the case with his image.
This proves my point about Aurangzeb's legacy.

Aurangzeb's name would not have evoked a higher-resolution, higher-color-density, sharper-focus, better-exposed image of somber grandeur than that of Akbar if he would not have been more secular and awesome in general than Akbar. I will edit this post later and underline some words for effect.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:25 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:Of all the men who sat upon the throne in Delhi no name evokes such an image of somber grandeur as that of Aurangzeb.

http://www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/aurangzib.html

It is worth noting that Aurangzeb's name evokes a higher-resolution, higher-color-density, sharper-focus, better-exposed image of somber grandeur than that of Akbar. If Aurangzeb was communal, this would not have been the case with his image.
This proves my point about Aurangzeb's legacy.
Aurangzeb's name would not have evoked a higher-resolution, higher-color-density, sharper-focus, better-exposed image of somber grandeur than that of Akbar if he would not have been more secular and awesome in general than Akbar. I will edit this post later and underline some words for effect.

I have underlined the words above in a subsequent edit.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:should Charvaka follow Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel's lead and forgive the Nizam for his mistake as well?

Should Rashmun stop his advocacy of treacherous kings who betrayed India? Or should be continue to advocate for kooks? Should there be a poll on this topic? Is it possible to avert the fiscal cliff? Eager minds want to know.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:27 pm

Warning: I am going to quote the post above and underline some words in future. Mind it.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:28 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:should Charvaka follow Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel's lead and forgive the Nizam for his mistake as well?
Should Rashmun stop his advocacy of treacherous kings who betrayed India? Or should he continue to advocate for kooks? Should there be a poll on this topic? Is it possible to avert the fiscal cliff? Eager minds want to know.

As warned earlier, I have underlined some words here.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, did Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel and others make a mistake when they appointed the Nizam Governor (Raj Pramukh) of his state?

Yes. Great men like Nizam, Rashmun and Anders all made mistakes. Also, Akbar and Jahangir. So it is no wonder that Nehru and Patel made a mistake with this one.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:47 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, did Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel and others make a mistake when they appointed the Nizam Governor (Raj Pramukh) of his state?
Yes. Great men like Nizam, Rashmun and Anders all made mistakes. Also, Akbar and Jahangir. So it is no wonder that Nehru and Patel made a mistake with this one.

Added strategic underlining.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:49 pm

It is time for some paintings again.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:49 pm

When you looked at the picture above, you no doubt wondered, "what does that good-looking man look like in profile?" Wonder no more. Here is the answer.

Question for connoisseurs of Mughal paintings: is that the emperor's hair emerging from the back of his generous hat, or is it a peacock feather?

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Aurangzeb-1-sized

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Aurangzeb-1-sized

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:49 pm

Time for some more pictures...

Aurangzeb on the peacock throne. Note that peacock is a Hindu motif. Aurangzeb's throne itself was secular, and he sits happily on it.

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Aurangzeb_T0000253_104

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Aurangzeb_T0000253_104

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:49 pm

Another picture of Aurangzeb in action. As you can see, there is a temple in the background which Aurangzeb has not destroyed.

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 The_capture_of_Orchha_by_imperial_forces_%28October_1635%29

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 The_capture_of_Orchha_by_imperial_forces_%28October_1635%29

by Hellsangel Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:50 pm

Did they have hair extensions back in the day?

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:50 pm

Aurangzeb was ahead of his times. He was a very fashionable man. The Mughals in general were on the cutting edge of fashion.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:51 pm

Here is another excellent Mughal painting of Aurangzeb the Great. Notice the elaborate headdress. Also, the Great Mughal liked his pearls.

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Hi-res

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Hi-res

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:51 pm

Here is a fuller image of the same portrait. I would like to draw your attention to the feather in his innovative hat. He also looks somewhat better nourished in this full picture than in the previous one.

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Aurangzeb

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:52 pm

Here is the full Mughal painting of Aurangzeb with halo. Notice that one of Aurangzeb's attendants does not sport a beard. If Aurangzeb was not secular, he would not have allowed his attendant be anything other than a devout, beard-sporting Muslim.

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Review-of-a-Play

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 Review-of-a-Play

by Hellsangel Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:58 pm

panini press wrote:Here is the full Mughal painting of Aurangzeb with halo. Notice that one of Aurangzeb's attendants does not sport a beard. If Aurangzeb was not secular, he would not have allowed his attendant be anything other than a devout, beard-sporting Muslim.

That boy must be his toy.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:25 pm

panini press wrote:Here is a fuller image of the same portrait. I would like to draw your attention to the feather in his innovative hat. He also looks somewhat better nourished in this full picture than in the previous one.

was aurangazeb a unix admin?

by Hellsangel Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:30 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

was aurangazeb a unix admin?

How about her?:

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 15 534640_10151471258559832_804330690_n

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151471258559832&set=a.492643594831.271412.546174831&type=3&theater

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:56 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
panini press wrote:Here is the full Mughal painting of Aurangzeb with halo. Notice that one of Aurangzeb's attendants does not sport a beard. If Aurangzeb was not secular, he would not have allowed his attendant be anything other than a devout, beard-sporting Muslim.

That boy must be his toy.

As the emperor of India, Aurangzeb was entitled to his toys. If, as you suggest, he chose Hindus for that purpose, we should applaud his liberal worldview.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:57 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
panini press wrote:Here is a fuller image of the same portrait. I would like to draw your attention to the feather in his innovative hat. He also looks somewhat better nourished in this full picture than in the previous one.

was aurangazeb a unix admin?

This is a fascinating question. I wish to know this too. I also wish to know whether Aurangzeb ever abused his admin privileges, and whether the victims of his abuse ran polls to get him replaced as admin. I hope PhD scholars research this important matter in more detail.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com