Was Rana Pratap an ass?

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

what are the exact details about shivaji's parentage? did he come from a broken family? who exactly was Shivaji's father? do u think it is justified to ban the books by james laine and jayant lele?

on another note, i want you to know that i am a great admirer of Shivaji and i much appreciated reading his letter to Aurangzeb. As i wrote earlier:

In Sir Jadunath Sarkar's 'Shivaji' pgs 320-323, one finds the english translation of a remarkable letter that the renowned Maratha leader Shivaji had written to the mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The letter was written three years prior to Shivaji's death, soon after Aurangzeb had imposed jaziya on hindus. The letter opens by paying a tribute to Akbar's policy in the sphere of religion.

"That architect of the fabric of Empire, Akbar Padshah, adopted the admirable policy of universal harmony in relation to all the various sects, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, materialists, atheists, brahmins, and Jain priests. The aim of his liberal heart was to cherish and protect all the people. So he became famous under the title of Jagat Guru, the world's spiritual guide."

This is followed by similar appreciative references to Jahangir and Shah Jahan. Shivaji continues:

'They [i.e. Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan--Rashmun], too, had the power to levy the jaziya, but they did not give place to bigotry in their hearts as they considered all men, high and low, created by God, to be examples of the nature of diverse creeds and temperaments....Prayer and praise for these three pure souls will dwell forever in the hearts and tongues of mankind.'

The next point Shivaji makes to Aurangzeb is even more significant.

'Your peasants are downtrodden; the yield of every village has declined; it is a reign in which the army is in ferment, the merchants complain, the muslims cry, the hindus are grilled, most men lack bread at night and in the day inflame their own cheeks by slapping them in anguish. How can the royal spirit permit you to add the hardship of the jaziya to this grievous state of things?'

So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"

Shivaji then goes on to say that the jaziya could be excused if there was such peace and prosperity under Aurangzeb's rule that a beautiful woman could travel unmolested from one part of his kingdom to another, but such a condition does not exist.

The last point of Shivaji's letter is also extremely important.

'If you believe in the true Divine Book and the Word of God , you will find there that God is styled Rabb-ul-alamin, the lord of all men, and not Rabb-ul-mussalmin, the lord of the Mohammedans only. Verily Islam and Hinduism are terms of contrast. If it be a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted in rememberance of Him only. If it be a temple, the bell is rung in yearning of Him only. To show bigotry for any man's creed and practices is equivalent to altering the words of the Holy Book.'

http://rivr.sulekha.com/shivaji-letter-to-aurangzeb_432973_blog

ashdoc, please share your views about Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb. Do you agree with Shivaji's high praise for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan ; or do you think Shivaji is guilty of distorting history in his letter to Aurangzeb?

shivaji had seen only muslim tyranny since his childhood , so akbar jahangir and shah jahan might have seemed good to him---at least better than the bijapur sultans whose rule he grew up under as well as aurangzeb .

but we live in happier times , and have access to better historical evidence than shivaji .

now shah jahan cannot be really exempted from bigotry , for he destroyed numerous hindu temples during his reign .
of course , he was not a blind fanatic like aurangzeb and was smart enough to know that he should not antagonise the majority population of his empire too much---so he did not impose jizya . but many historians accuse him of creating conditions for the rise of a monster like aurangzeb . of course , in his later years he did try to make amends by supporting the liberal dara shikoh but that was due his smartness as he came to realise that aurangzeb would drive the empire to ruin , not because he had turned liberal .

as far as akbar is concerned he may have been liberal in his religious policies but his conquest of north india and part of the deccan was full of mass massacre and destruction . he still showed the barbarism of the turkomongols . and he kidnapped for himself any woman he liked , both hindu and muslim . in this he did not care if the woman concerned was married and had children . she was forcibly evicted from her family to fulfill the emperor's barbaric lust....when a maulavi started a campaign against this akbar punished him by kidnapping his wife too---'' and then for the next two days jahapanah basked and bathed in her beauty before consigning her into the depths of his harem '' , says akbars chronicler.....note that after sleeping with her akbar did not touch her ever again but still she was not returned to her family---she was kept until her death as a captive in the harem....any woman once touched by akbar was HIS woman and was not to be returned back.....

if jahangir did not indulge in mass massacre that was due to his inertia because of opium and wine addiction---he did not conquer anything so he had less chance to indulge in killing and bloodlust , indeed the empire lost kandahar during his reign and did not gain anything . of course his inertia did not prevent him from trying to unseat the ' great ' akbar and become king himself while akbar was alive---but of course he failed in that . and jahangir did kill a sikh guru for the ostensible reason that the guru supported the rebel son khusrau---but in jahangirnama he writes that he killed the sikh guru because the guru was not ready to convert to islam .

i have read the autobiography of jahangir and i *know* that jahangir does NOT say that he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan because the guru did not convert to islam. in fact, jahangir explains in his autobiography that he ordered the execution because Arjan was guilty of treason: he had publicly supported Khusrau's rebellion and publicly blessed Khusrau by applying a tika on the rebel prince's forehead in public.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

on another note, i want you to know that i am a great admirer of Shivaji and i much appreciated reading his letter to Aurangzeb. As i wrote earlier:

In Sir Jadunath Sarkar's 'Shivaji' pgs 320-323, one finds the english translation of a remarkable letter that the renowned Maratha leader Shivaji had written to the mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The letter was written three years prior to Shivaji's death, soon after Aurangzeb had imposed jaziya on hindus. The letter opens by paying a tribute to Akbar's policy in the sphere of religion.

"That architect of the fabric of Empire, Akbar Padshah, adopted the admirable policy of universal harmony in relation to all the various sects, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, materialists, atheists, brahmins, and Jain priests. The aim of his liberal heart was to cherish and protect all the people. So he became famous under the title of Jagat Guru, the world's spiritual guide."

This is followed by similar appreciative references to Jahangir and Shah Jahan. Shivaji continues:

'They [i.e. Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan--Rashmun], too, had the power to levy the jaziya, but they did not give place to bigotry in their hearts as they considered all men, high and low, created by God, to be examples of the nature of diverse creeds and temperaments....Prayer and praise for these three pure souls will dwell forever in the hearts and tongues of mankind.'

The next point Shivaji makes to Aurangzeb is even more significant.

'Your peasants are downtrodden; the yield of every village has declined; it is a reign in which the army is in ferment, the merchants complain, the muslims cry, the hindus are grilled, most men lack bread at night and in the day inflame their own cheeks by slapping them in anguish. How can the royal spirit permit you to add the hardship of the jaziya to this grievous state of things?'

So Shivaji's protest against the jaziya is part of a general protest against the intolerable burdens placed on all the subjects of Aurangzeb, in which muslims are also included by Shivaji. Still further, the letter asks Aurangzeb why he did not levy the jaziya on his hindu nobles and chieftans: "Why are they exempted?"

Shivaji then goes on to say that the jaziya could be excused if there was such peace and prosperity under Aurangzeb's rule that a beautiful woman could travel unmolested from one part of his kingdom to another, but such a condition does not exist.

The last point of Shivaji's letter is also extremely important.

'If you believe in the true Divine Book and the Word of God , you will find there that God is styled Rabb-ul-alamin, the lord of all men, and not Rabb-ul-mussalmin, the lord of the Mohammedans only. Verily Islam and Hinduism are terms of contrast. If it be a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted in rememberance of Him only. If it be a temple, the bell is rung in yearning of Him only. To show bigotry for any man's creed and practices is equivalent to altering the words of the Holy Book.'

http://rivr.sulekha.com/shivaji-letter-to-aurangzeb_432973_blog

ashdoc, please share your views about Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb. Do you agree with Shivaji's high praise for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan ; or do you think Shivaji is guilty of distorting history in his letter to Aurangzeb?

shivaji had seen only muslim tyranny since his childhood , so akbar jahangir and shah jahan might have seemed good to him---at least better than the bijapur sultans whose rule he grew up under as well as aurangzeb .

but we live in happier times , and have access to better historical evidence than shivaji .

now shah jahan cannot be really exempted from bigotry , for he destroyed numerous hindu temples during his reign .
of course , he was not a blind fanatic like aurangzeb and was smart enough to know that he should not antagonise the majority population of his empire too much---so he did not impose jizya . but many historians accuse him of creating conditions for the rise of a monster like aurangzeb . of course , in his later years he did try to make amends by supporting the liberal dara shikoh but that was due his smartness as he came to realise that aurangzeb would drive the empire to ruin , not because he had turned liberal .

as far as akbar is concerned he may have been liberal in his religious policies but his conquest of north india and part of the deccan was full of mass massacre and destruction . he still showed the barbarism of the turkomongols . and he kidnapped for himself any woman he liked , both hindu and muslim . in this he did not care if the woman concerned was married and had children . she was forcibly evicted from her family to fulfill the emperor's barbaric lust....when a maulavi started a campaign against this akbar punished him by kidnapping his wife too---'' and then for the next two days jahapanah basked and bathed in her beauty before consigning her into the depths of his harem '' , says akbars chronicler.....note that after sleeping with her akbar did not touch her ever again but still she was not returned to her family---she was kept until her death as a captive in the harem....any woman once touched by akbar was HIS woman and was not to be returned back.....

if jahangir did not indulge in mass massacre that was due to his inertia because of opium and wine addiction---he did not conquer anything so he had less chance to indulge in killing and bloodlust , indeed the empire lost kandahar during his reign and did not gain anything . of course his inertia did not prevent him from trying to unseat the ' great ' akbar and become king himself while akbar was alive---but of course he failed in that . and jahangir did kill a sikh guru for the ostensible reason that the guru supported the rebel son khusrau---but in jahangirnama he writes that he killed the sikh guru because the guru was not ready to convert to islam .

i have read the autobiography of jahangir and i *know* that jahangir does NOT say that he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan because the guru did not convert to islam. in fact, jahangir explains in his autobiography that he ordered the execution because Arjan was guilty of treason: he had publicly supported Khusrau's rebellion and publicly blessed Khusrau by applying a tika on the rebel prince's forehead in public.

Jahangir's rebellion against Akbar was something of a joke. He was probably wrongly advised by his advisors. There was never any clash of arms between Akbar and Jahangir and Jahangir agreed to submit himself to Akbar's mercy after an appeal by his grandmother. Subsequently Akbar forgave Jahangir.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc, please share your views about Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb. Do you agree with Shivaji's high praise for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan ; or do you think Shivaji is guilty of distorting history in his letter to Aurangzeb?

shivaji had seen only muslim tyranny since his childhood , so akbar jahangir and shah jahan might have seemed good to him---at least better than the bijapur sultans whose rule he grew up under as well as aurangzeb .

but we live in happier times , and have access to better historical evidence than shivaji .

now shah jahan cannot be really exempted from bigotry , for he destroyed numerous hindu temples during his reign .
of course , he was not a blind fanatic like aurangzeb and was smart enough to know that he should not antagonise the majority population of his empire too much---so he did not impose jizya . but many historians accuse him of creating conditions for the rise of a monster like aurangzeb . of course , in his later years he did try to make amends by supporting the liberal dara shikoh but that was due his smartness as he came to realise that aurangzeb would drive the empire to ruin , not because he had turned liberal .

as far as akbar is concerned he may have been liberal in his religious policies but his conquest of north india and part of the deccan was full of mass massacre and destruction . he still showed the barbarism of the turkomongols . and he kidnapped for himself any woman he liked , both hindu and muslim . in this he did not care if the woman concerned was married and had children . she was forcibly evicted from her family to fulfill the emperor's barbaric lust....when a maulavi started a campaign against this akbar punished him by kidnapping his wife too---'' and then for the next two days jahapanah basked and bathed in her beauty before consigning her into the depths of his harem '' , says akbars chronicler.....note that after sleeping with her akbar did not touch her ever again but still she was not returned to her family---she was kept until her death as a captive in the harem....any woman once touched by akbar was HIS woman and was not to be returned back.....

if jahangir did not indulge in mass massacre that was due to his inertia because of opium and wine addiction---he did not conquer anything so he had less chance to indulge in killing and bloodlust , indeed the empire lost kandahar during his reign and did not gain anything . of course his inertia did not prevent him from trying to unseat the ' great ' akbar and become king himself while akbar was alive---but of course he failed in that . and jahangir did kill a sikh guru for the ostensible reason that the guru supported the rebel son khusrau---but in jahangirnama he writes that he killed the sikh guru because the guru was not ready to convert to islam .

i have read the autobiography of jahangir and i *know* that jahangir does NOT say that he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan because the guru did not convert to islam. in fact, jahangir explains in his autobiography that he ordered the execution because Arjan was guilty of treason: he had publicly supported Khusrau's rebellion and publicly blessed Khusrau by applying a tika on the rebel prince's forehead in public.

Jahangir's rebellion against Akbar was something of a joke. He was probably wrongly advised by his advisors. There was never any clash of arms between Akbar and Jahangir and Jahangir agreed to submit himself to Akbar's mercy after an appeal by his grandmother. Subsequently Akbar forgave Jahangir.

in his autobiography jahangir writes that as a young man he had started drinking twenty cups of double distilled spirits. his hands used to shake as he gulped own one cup after another, and it was then that his doctors advised him that at this rate he would die in six months. On hearing this, Jahangir resolved to moderate his drinking habits and started drinking eight cups of a mixture of wine and spirits thrice a week. In my opinion this shows Jahangir's will power and strength of character.

Rashmun wrote:In his memoirs the British ambassador to Jahangir's court, Sir Thomas Roe, writes the following about Jahangir's kingdom: "All kinds of religions are welcome and free for the king is of none".

Rashmun wrote:

Jahangir's rebellion against Akbar was something of a joke.

Rashmun wrote:
i have read the autobiography of jahangir and i *know* that jahangir does NOT say that he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan because the guru did not convert to islam. in fact, jahangir explains in his autobiography that he ordered the execution because Arjan was guilty of treason: he had publicly supported Khusrau's rebellion and publicly blessed Khusrau by applying a tika on the rebel prince's forehead in public.

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
i have read the autobiography of jahangir and i *know* that jahangir does NOT say that he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan because the guru did not convert to islam. in fact, jahangir explains in his autobiography that he ordered the execution because Arjan was guilty of treason: he had publicly supported Khusrau's rebellion and publicly blessed Khusrau by applying a tika on the rebel prince's forehead in public.

The tyrant, Jahangir gives his reasons

This is what Emperor Jahangir had written in his diary the "Tuzuk-i-Jahagiri" ( "Memoirs of Jahangir"):
"In Govindwal, which is on the river Biyah (Beas), there was a Hindu [wrongly addresses Guru as a Hindu!] named Arjun, in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness.

They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam.

At last when Khusrau passed along this road this insignificant fellow proposed to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was, and he came out and did homage to him. He behaved to Khusrau in certain special ways, and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron, which the Hinduwan (the people of India) call qashqa, (Tilak) and is considered propitious. When this came to my ears and I clearly understood his folly, I ordered them to produce him and handed over his houses, dwelling-places, and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property commanded that he should be put to death."

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Reasons_for_the_martyrdom_of_Guru_Arjan#The_tyrant.2C_Jahangir_gives_his_reasons

Rashmun wrote:a sikh site is the last place one should go to for learning about what really happened. sikhs will naturally give a biased account and will even be economical with the truth in this case since the honor of their Guru is involved.

Rashmun wrote:In this connection, the Nizam of Hyderabad's action in building a gurudwara (in the year 1840) at the place where Guru Gobind Singh died is most commendable.

Rashmun wrote:Excerpt from a speech given by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose:

Another bogey that is often
raised is that since the Hindus are in larger numbers, independent India
will be a Hindu Raj. I will tell such cynics to please go and read our
history again. Was Mughal rule a Muslim Raj? Never! Never! Never! The
Mughal army was half Rajput, officials were Hindus and majority of
people remained Hindu. Yes, there were misguided rulers like Aurangzeb
but they soon wasted away. Mr Jinnah is a modern Aurangzeb. But
remember, it was the bigotry of Aurangzeb that destroyed the great
Mughal Empire.

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2003/jan/23spec.htm

Rashmun wrote:From the chapter on Jahangir in Bamber Gascoigne's "The Great Moghuls":


Historians of a schoolmasterly disposition have tended to award Jahangir very low marks as being debauched, spineless, and susceptible to women, but he is among the most sympathetic of the Great Moghuls, and was--at least in cultural matters--one of the most talented. Certainly no other member of his family comes alive so vividly to a modern student. There are two reasons specifically for this, and both are the direct result of Jahangir's own talents and energies.

The first is that he has left a diary which is just as fresh and immediate as the autobiography of his great-grandfather Babur; and the second that under his direct guidance the court painters reached unrivalled heights, particularly in portraiture with the result that the personality of the emperor himself remains exposed to us in a wide range of subtly realistic studies.It is a most unjust accident of history that Babur's memoirs should be so famous and Jahangir's almost unknown. Admittedly Babur, writing in a period when other chronicles were scarce, has an extra value as a unique source for many facts and dates, but on any other score Jahangir is at least his equal.

Jahangir inherited his curiosity from his father...his distinction is his fierce emperical rationalism combined with an almost ecstatic response to simple facts of nature, as when he marvles at a tree in blossom and then, as he looks more closely, marvels equally at a single blossom on that tree. The Emperor would have found himself much in sympathy with the scientific gentleman who, many thousand miles away and some thirty years after his death, gathered together in London to form the Royal Society...It is typical of his rational skepticism that when he visits a tomb where miracles are said to occur, his first question to the attendant is 'What is the real state of affairs?'...a long tale about the philosopher's stone leads him to the instinctive conclusion 'My intelligence in no way accepts this story. It appears to me to be all delusion.'...

The memory of his father dominated Jahangir the Emperor as much as Akbar himself had dominated Salim the crown prince...He deliberately received with favor the disciples of Akbar's religion, recounted with approval in his diary the principles of the din-i-Ilahi and the need to 'follow the rule of universal peace with regard to religions' and continued Akbar's Thursday evening discussions. He encouraged the Jesuites at least as much as Akbar and his favourite holy man was a Hindu ascetic named Jadrup whom he loved to visit whenever possible for long discussions in the 'narrow and dark hole' cut into a hillside where the hermit lived without mat or fire and naked except for his loin cloth.

But Jahangir's religious attitudes were largely matters of impulse where Akbar's had been of policy. His tolerance of other religions derived from the receptive quality of his mind, but a shock of aesthetic disgust could well make him behave quite inconsistently--as when at the lake of Pushkar, a holy place to the Hindus, he was deeply offended by the sight of an idol, a 'form cut out of black stone, which from the neck above was in the shape of a pig's head, and the rest of the body was like that of a man'. [Varah avataar or boar avataar is one of the avataars of Vishnu-Rashmun]. So he ordered his followers to 'break that hideous form' and throw it into the water, and for good measure disposed too of the local belief that there is no bottom to the lake by establishing it to be 'nowhere deeper than 12 cubits'...It is interesting that Roe [Sir Thomas Roe--British Ambassador at Jahangir's court--Rashmun] describes him in words which read as if written about Akbar:"His religion is of his own invention; for he envies Mahomett, and wisely sees no reason why he should not be as great a prophet as he, and therefore proffesseth himself so...he hath found many disciples that flatter or follow him...all sorts of religions are welcome and free, for the King is of none....

Jahangir could be monstrously unpredictable and cruel--particularly under the influence of alcohol, as when he gave instructions one evening for his companions to drink with him, forgot the next morning that he had done so and punished the less powerful among them most brutally for indulging themselves--but for the most part he was unusually mild and he is described in European accounts as 'gentle, soft of disposition' or 'gentle and debonaire'. Roe was highly impressed by the courtesy which he always received from Jahangir; and the emperor's charm can be seen again and again in the ambassador's pages.

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Jahangir's rebellion against Akbar was something of a joke.

what joke ??

jahangir had akbar's best friend abul fazl killed at the hands of a rajput chieftan during his rebellion---a source of much grief to akbar .

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
i have read the autobiography of jahangir and i *know* that jahangir does NOT say that he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan because the guru did not convert to islam. in fact, jahangir explains in his autobiography that he ordered the execution because Arjan was guilty of treason: he had publicly supported Khusrau's rebellion and publicly blessed Khusrau by applying a tika on the rebel prince's forehead in public.

The tyrant, Jahangir gives his reasons

This is what Emperor Jahangir had written in his diary the "Tuzuk-i-Jahagiri" ( "Memoirs of Jahangir"):
"In Govindwal, which is on the river Biyah (Beas), there was a Hindu [wrongly addresses Guru as a Hindu!] named Arjun, in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness.

They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam.

At last when Khusrau passed along this road this insignificant fellow proposed to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was, and he came out and did homage to him. He behaved to Khusrau in certain special ways, and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron, which the Hinduwan (the people of India) call qashqa, (Tilak) and is considered propitious. When this came to my ears and I clearly understood his folly, I ordered them to produce him and handed over his houses, dwelling-places, and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property commanded that he should be put to death."

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Reasons_for_the_martyrdom_of_Guru_Arjan#The_tyrant.2C_Jahangir_gives_his_reasons

a sikh site is the last place one should go to for learning about what really happened. sikhs will naturally give a biased account and will even be economical with the truth in this case since the honor of their Guru is involved. the truth is, however, that jahangir had no wish to make the guru a muslim. The line " Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam" does not occur in Jahangir's autobiography. Arjan was executed for only one reason: Treason. He had publicly blessed and encouraged the rebellion of Jahangir's son Khusrau. i would suggest that with respect to the Guru Arjan incident you read Jahangir's autobiography rather than jump to conclusions after reading sikh websites.

Although Jahangir's action is understandable i wish he would have pardoned Guru Arjan since this execution resulted in bad blood between sikhs and mughals for several generations. In this connection, the Nizam of Hyderabad's action in building a gurudwara (in the year 1840) at the place where Guru Gobind Singh died is most commendable.

Rashmun wrote:ashdoc, just the fact that jahangir would spent hours and hours in discussions with jadrup, the fact that he would go to Jadrup's cave and sit and discuss with Jadrup in the cave (and not order Jadrup to come to his palace) needs to be appreciated by you. Such a person cannot possibly be a muslim bigot. This is also confirmed by Sir Thomas Roe, British ambassador at the court of Jahangir, when he writes in his memoirs the following about Jahangir:

"All kinds of religions are welcome and free for the king is of none".

Rashmun wrote:

abul fazl was killed much later i.e. much after the so called rebellion of jahangir which was something of a joke. abul fazl was warned by friends not to go through a particular area with very few men but he preferred not to listen to the warning.

jahangir justifies the killing of abul fazl in his autobiography. the reason he gives is that abul fazl--who was very close to Akbar--was constantly saying negative things about him to akbar and essentially creating an atmosphere of distrust and misunderstanding between him and akbar. and so he got a hindu chieftan friend of his to assasinate abul fazl. in my opinion, in politics in medieval India, and indeed in the medieval world, this was not anything very unusual. In my opinion, Kautilya (Chanakya) would have approved of what Jahangir did.

Of course, as a lover of history, i regret the death of abul fazl (who was a great historian) as much as anyone else.

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

abul fazl was killed much later i.e. much after the so called rebellion of jahangir which was something of a joke. abul fazl was warned by friends not to go through a particular area with very few men but he preferred not to listen to the warning.

jahangir justifies the killing of abul fazl in his autobiography. the reason he gives is that abul fazl--who was very close to Akbar--was constantly saying negative things about him to akbar and essentially creating an atmosphere of distrust and misunderstanding between him and akbar. and so he got a hindu chieftan friend of his to assasinate abul fazl. in my opinion, in politics in medieval India, and indeed in the medieval world, this was not anything very unusual. In my opinion, Kautilya (Chanakya) would have approved of what Jahangir did.

Of course, as a lover of history, i regret the death of abul fazl (who was a great historian) as much as anyone else.

salim (called jahangir only after his coronation ) revolted several times against his father , not just once . if one rebellion was a joke the other wasn't---certainly not the one in which he killed abul fazl .

and abul fazl was only warning akbar of the truth---and the truth was that salim's friends and cronies were constantly spurring salim to revolt and grab the throne for himself , especially after he entered his thirties . they were saying---''soon you will grow old , when will you become king . put akbar in prison and grab the throne now '' or words to that effect .

jahangir may give any excuses for the murder he is accused of . only people like you will believe them---ready as you are to excuse him of anything . why should i believe them ??

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:ashdoc, just the fact that jahangir would spent hours and hours in discussions with jadrup, the fact that he would go to Jadrup's cave and sit and discuss with Jadrup in the cave (and not order Jadrup to come to his palace) needs to be appreciated by you. Such a person cannot possibly be a muslim bigot. This is also confirmed by Sir Thomas Roe, British ambassador at the court of Jahangir, when he writes in his memoirs the following about Jahangir:

"All kinds of religions are welcome and free for the king is of none".

i didnt call him a total bigot . read my original post on the matter . but even he was not free from instances of bigotry---as the guru arjan incident proves .

and you have very nicely moved the discussion away from rana pratap to other topics since you couldn't prove what you wanted to prove there---but you called the rana an ass thereby hurting hindu feelings as they consider him a hero . whether jahangir was or was not i dont know but you are certainly a bigot !!

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
i have read the autobiography of jahangir and i *know* that jahangir does NOT say that he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan because the guru did not convert to islam. in fact, jahangir explains in his autobiography that he ordered the execution because Arjan was guilty of treason: he had publicly supported Khusrau's rebellion and publicly blessed Khusrau by applying a tika on the rebel prince's forehead in public.

The tyrant, Jahangir gives his reasons

This is what Emperor Jahangir had written in his diary the "Tuzuk-i-Jahagiri" ( "Memoirs of Jahangir"):
"In Govindwal, which is on the river Biyah (Beas), there was a Hindu [wrongly addresses Guru as a Hindu!] named Arjun, in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness.

They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam.

At last when Khusrau passed along this road this insignificant fellow proposed to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was, and he came out and did homage to him. He behaved to Khusrau in certain special ways, and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron, which the Hinduwan (the people of India) call qashqa, (Tilak) and is considered propitious. When this came to my ears and I clearly understood his folly, I ordered them to produce him and handed over his houses, dwelling-places, and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property commanded that he should be put to death."

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Reasons_for_the_martyrdom_of_Guru_Arjan#The_tyrant.2C_Jahangir_gives_his_reasons

a sikh site is the last place one should go to for learning about what really happened. sikhs will naturally give a biased account and will even be economical with the truth in this case since the honor of their Guru is involved. the truth is, however, that jahangir had no wish to make the guru a muslim. The line " Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam" does not occur in Jahangir's autobiography. Arjan was executed for only one reason: Treason. He had publicly blessed and encouraged the rebellion of Jahangir's son Khusrau. i would suggest that with respect to the Guru Arjan incident you read Jahangir's autobiography rather than jump to conclusions after reading sikh websites.

Although Jahangir's action is understandable i wish he would have pardoned Guru Arjan since this execution resulted in bad blood between sikhs and mughals for several generations. In this connection, the Nizam of Hyderabad's action in building a gurudwara (in the year 1840) at the place where Guru Gobind Singh died is most commendable.

i have read this line ( Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam.) in other books as well---like A L Srivastava's THE MUGHAL EMPIRE . i deliberately searched for it on the internet and got it !!

Rashmun wrote:the execution of guru arjan was not because of religious bigotry but because arjan had committed treason by publicly blessing the rebellion of Jahangir's son Khusrau. being a religious figure, Arjan should have stayed away from politics.

Carvaka wrote:
History is replete with cruelties perpetrated by people of all regions and faiths.

Rashmun wrote:I agree with what Charvaka wrote 5 years ago. Some may accuse him of polishing turd but i would not agree with such people.

Carvaka wrote:
History is replete with cruelties perpetrated by people of all regions and faiths.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/jahangir-emperor-of-india.htm

panini press wrote:Thanks for agreeing with me. Do you also agree with my conclusion using your own methods that Aurangzeb is secular, not communal? I gave you tons of reasons on the Aurangzeb thread. Are you steadfastly avoiding going there? Are you scared of what people will think of you if you support Aurangzeb?

Rashmun wrote:let us focus on jahangir for now.

Rashmun wrote:we can discuss aurangzeb in another thread.

Rashmun wrote:my question is: have you changed your view on jahangir from the one you had 5 years ago?

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:let us focus on jahangir for now.

Why? Because you are scared of talking about Aurangzeb? Where did Jahangir even come from in all this discussion about the Nizam and Aurangzeb? You revived him because you need a distraction from a topic you are scared to touch?

Rashmun wrote:we can discuss aurangzeb in another thread.

Yeah, let us see if you have the courage to respond to the many points I have made in the Aurangzeb using your very own methods and arguments!

Rashmun wrote:my question is: have you changed your view on jahangir from the one you had 5 years ago?

No.

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:let us focus on jahangir for now.

Why? Because you are scared of talking about Aurangzeb? Where did Jahangir even come from in all this discussion about the Nizam and Aurangzeb? You revived him because you need a distraction from a topic you are scared to touch?

Rashmun wrote:we can discuss aurangzeb in another thread.

Yeah, let us see if you have the courage to respond to the many points I have made in the Aurangzeb using your very own methods and arguments!

Rashmun wrote:my question is: have you changed your view on jahangir from the one you had 5 years ago?

No.

good to know that you continue to have a high opinion of jahangir.

carvaka 5 years ago wrote:I would say anyone who drinks 8 cups of a cocktail of wine and distilled spirit every other day is a habitual drunkard .

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:let us focus on jahangir for now.

Why? Because you are scared of talking about Aurangzeb? Where did Jahangir even come from in all this discussion about the Nizam and Aurangzeb? You revived him because you need a distraction from a topic you are scared to touch?

Rashmun wrote:we can discuss aurangzeb in another thread.

Yeah, let us see if you have the courage to respond to the many points I have made in the Aurangzeb using your very own methods and arguments!

Rashmun wrote:my question is: have you changed your view on jahangir from the one you had 5 years ago?

No.

good to know that you continue to have a high opinion of jahangir.

I had a middling opinion of Jahangir then, and I have had no reason to change it.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/jahangir-and-will-power.htm

Rashmun wrote:http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/jahangir-emperor-of-india.htm

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/jahangir-emperor-of-india.htm

I didn't attack anyone. I just expressed my views on the discussion.

I take it that you are scared to defend your views regarding Aurangzeb. It is OK to be scared; it is Halloween today. Come back tomorrow and tell us why you think Aurangzeb is communal, OK?

Rashmun wrote:why should i be scared to articulate my views on Aurangzeb

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:why should i be scared to articulate my views on Aurangzeb

Because your own methods lead to the conclusion that Aurangzeb is secular.

panini press wrote:None of which you are in a position to point out!

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:From the chapter on Jahangir in Bamber Gascoigne's "The Great Moghuls":


Historians of a schoolmasterly disposition have tended to award Jahangir very low marks as being debauched, spineless, and susceptible to women, but he is among the most sympathetic of the Great Moghuls, and was--at least in cultural matters--one of the most talented. Certainly no other member of his family comes alive so vividly to a modern student. There are two reasons specifically for this, and both are the direct result of Jahangir's own talents and energies.

The first is that he has left a diary which is just as fresh and immediate as the autobiography of his great-grandfather Babur; and the second that under his direct guidance the court painters reached unrivalled heights, particularly in portraiture with the result that the personality of the emperor himself remains exposed to us in a wide range of subtly realistic studies.It is a most unjust accident of history that Babur's memoirs should be so famous and Jahangir's almost unknown. Admittedly Babur, writing in a period when other chronicles were scarce, has an extra value as a unique source for many facts and dates, but on any other score Jahangir is at least his equal.

Jahangir inherited his curiosity from his father...his distinction is his fierce emperical rationalism combined with an almost ecstatic response to simple facts of nature, as when he marvles at a tree in blossom and then, as he looks more closely, marvels equally at a single blossom on that tree. The Emperor would have found himself much in sympathy with the scientific gentleman who, many thousand miles away and some thirty years after his death, gathered together in London to form the Royal Society...It is typical of his rational skepticism that when he visits a tomb where miracles are said to occur, his first question to the attendant is 'What is the real state of affairs?'...a long tale about the philosopher's stone leads him to the instinctive conclusion 'My intelligence in no way accepts this story. It appears to me to be all delusion.'...

The memory of his father dominated Jahangir the Emperor as much as Akbar himself had dominated Salim the crown prince...He deliberately received with favor the disciples of Akbar's religion, recounted with approval in his diary the principles of the din-i-Ilahi and the need to 'follow the rule of universal peace with regard to religions' and continued Akbar's Thursday evening discussions. He encouraged the Jesuites at least as much as Akbar and his favourite holy man was a Hindu ascetic named Jadrup whom he loved to visit whenever possible for long discussions in the 'narrow and dark hole' cut into a hillside where the hermit lived without mat or fire and naked except for his loin cloth.

But Jahangir's religious attitudes were largely matters of impulse where Akbar's had been of policy. His tolerance of other religions derived from the receptive quality of his mind, but a shock of aesthetic disgust could well make him behave quite inconsistently--as when at the lake of Pushkar, a holy place to the Hindus, he was deeply offended by the sight of an idol, a 'form cut out of black stone, which from the neck above was in the shape of a pig's head, and the rest of the body was like that of a man'. [Varah avataar or boar avataar is one of the avataars of Vishnu-Rashmun]. So he ordered his followers to 'break that hideous form' and throw it into the water, and for good measure disposed too of the local belief that there is no bottom to the lake by establishing it to be 'nowhere deeper than 12 cubits'...It is interesting that Roe [Sir Thomas Roe--British Ambassador at Jahangir's court--Rashmun] describes him in words which read as if written about Akbar:"His religion is of his own invention; for he envies Mahomett, and wisely sees no reason why he should not be as great a prophet as he, and therefore proffesseth himself so...he hath found many disciples that flatter or follow him...all sorts of religions are welcome and free, for the King is of none....

Jahangir could be monstrously unpredictable and cruel--particularly under the influence of alcohol, as when he gave instructions one evening for his companions to drink with him, forgot the next morning that he had done so and punished the less powerful among them most brutally for indulging themselves--but for the most part he was unusually mild and he is described in European accounts as 'gentle, soft of disposition' or 'gentle and debonaire'. Roe was highly impressed by the courtesy which he always received from Jahangir; and the emperor's charm can be seen again and again in the ambassador's pages.

From Bamber Gascoigne's chapter on Jahangir in his book 'The Great Moghuls':

For the most part, he was unusually mild and he is described in European accounts as 'gentle, soft of disposition' or 'gentle and debonair'...And he is certainly the warmest, the most emotional of the Great Moghuls; his responses to the death of one grandchild and to the miraculous escape from a high fall of another would rank as touching passages in any diary; and if his feelings at times spilled over into the rankest sentimentality, as in the vast drinking tank for animals built at Sheikhupura in memory of a favourite deer, we can at least enjoy the resulting architecture...

After a leisurely journey of four months the camp reached the huge hill fortress of Mandu...he[Jahangir] took great pleasure in kicking the tomb of a Mandu ruler, Nasir-ud-din, who had been so brutal as to kill his own father, and then as his indignation increased at such a thought the emperor decided to go further and he had the wretch's body dug up and thrown into the river.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:From the chapter on Jahangir in Bamber Gascoigne's "The Great Moghuls":


Historians of a schoolmasterly disposition have tended to award Jahangir very low marks as being debauched, spineless, and susceptible to women, but he is among the most sympathetic of the Great Moghuls, and was--at least in cultural matters--one of the most talented. Certainly no other member of his family comes alive so vividly to a modern student. There are two reasons specifically for this, and both are the direct result of Jahangir's own talents and energies.

The first is that he has left a diary which is just as fresh and immediate as the autobiography of his great-grandfather Babur; and the second that under his direct guidance the court painters reached unrivalled heights, particularly in portraiture with the result that the personality of the emperor himself remains exposed to us in a wide range of subtly realistic studies.It is a most unjust accident of history that Babur's memoirs should be so famous and Jahangir's almost unknown. Admittedly Babur, writing in a period when other chronicles were scarce, has an extra value as a unique source for many facts and dates, but on any other score Jahangir is at least his equal.

Jahangir inherited his curiosity from his father...his distinction is his fierce emperical rationalism combined with an almost ecstatic response to simple facts of nature, as when he marvles at a tree in blossom and then, as he looks more closely, marvels equally at a single blossom on that tree. The Emperor would have found himself much in sympathy with the scientific gentleman who, many thousand miles away and some thirty years after his death, gathered together in London to form the Royal Society...It is typical of his rational skepticism that when he visits a tomb where miracles are said to occur, his first question to the attendant is 'What is the real state of affairs?'...a long tale about the philosopher's stone leads him to the instinctive conclusion 'My intelligence in no way accepts this story. It appears to me to be all delusion.'...

The memory of his father dominated Jahangir the Emperor as much as Akbar himself had dominated Salim the crown prince...He deliberately received with favor the disciples of Akbar's religion, recounted with approval in his diary the principles of the din-i-Ilahi and the need to 'follow the rule of universal peace with regard to religions' and continued Akbar's Thursday evening discussions. He encouraged the Jesuites at least as much as Akbar and his favourite holy man was a Hindu ascetic named Jadrup whom he loved to visit whenever possible for long discussions in the 'narrow and dark hole' cut into a hillside where the hermit lived without mat or fire and naked except for his loin cloth.

But Jahangir's religious attitudes were largely matters of impulse where Akbar's had been of policy. His tolerance of other religions derived from the receptive quality of his mind, but a shock of aesthetic disgust could well make him behave quite inconsistently--as when at the lake of Pushkar, a holy place to the Hindus, he was deeply offended by the sight of an idol, a 'form cut out of black stone, which from the neck above was in the shape of a pig's head, and the rest of the body was like that of a man'. [Varah avataar or boar avataar is one of the avataars of Vishnu-Rashmun]. So he ordered his followers to 'break that hideous form' and throw it into the water, and for good measure disposed too of the local belief that there is no bottom to the lake by establishing it to be 'nowhere deeper than 12 cubits'...It is interesting that Roe [Sir Thomas Roe--British Ambassador at Jahangir's court--Rashmun] describes him in words which read as if written about Akbar:"His religion is of his own invention; for he envies Mahomett, and wisely sees no reason why he should not be as great a prophet as he, and therefore proffesseth himself so...he hath found many disciples that flatter or follow him...all sorts of religions are welcome and free, for the King is of none....

Jahangir could be monstrously unpredictable and cruel--particularly under the influence of alcohol, as when he gave instructions one evening for his companions to drink with him, forgot the next morning that he had done so and punished the less powerful among them most brutally for indulging themselves--but for the most part he was unusually mild and he is described in European accounts as 'gentle, soft of disposition' or 'gentle and debonaire'. Roe was highly impressed by the courtesy which he always received from Jahangir; and the emperor's charm can be seen again and again in the ambassador's pages.

From Bamber Gascoigne's chapter on Jahangir in his book 'The Great Moghuls':

For the most part, he was unusually mild and he is described in European accounts as 'gentle, soft of disposition' or 'gentle and debonair'...And he is certainly the warmest, the most emotional of the Great Moghuls; his responses to the death of one grandchild and to the miraculous escape from a high fall of another would rank as touching passages in any diary; and if his feelings at times spilled over into the rankest sentimentality, as in the vast drinking tank for animals built at Sheikhupura in memory of a favourite deer, we can at least enjoy the resulting architecture...

After a leisurely journey of four months the camp reached the huge hill fortress of Mandu...he[Jahangir] took great pleasure in kicking the tomb of a Mandu ruler, Nasir-ud-din, who had been so brutal as to kill his own father, and then as his indignation increased at such a thought the emperor decided to go further and he had the wretch's body dug up and thrown into the river.

from a sulekha blog post of yours truly:


1.Several Jesuit missionaries had visited the court of the Mughal Emperors Akbar and Jahangir; subsequently, they wrote letters, missives, even books about their adventures at the court of the Great Mughals. One must take into account an important consideration: the Fathers are not detached scholars, they have a very clear bias for Christianity. Further, their one point agenda was to convert the Mughal emperor to Christianity and then attempt to impose the Christian religion onto large parts of India in the 'top down' fashion.



2. It seems Jahangir had inherited his great father's inquisitiveness regarding philosophical enquiries; it should be noted that his favourite holy man was the hindu monk Jadrup with whom Jahangir himself tells us in his autobiography he would spend several hours 'discussing the science of Vedanta'.
3. By 'moors' the Fathers are referring to muslims, by 'gentiles' to hindus.
4. Following from the book 'Jahangir and the Jesuits' by Father Guerriro and translated by C.H. Payne (pg 51-56):



"The King[Jahangir] spoke next, asking the Fathers to enlighten him on various points. Though it cannot be said that he spoke with kingly gravity, his questions deserve to be recorded, seeing that they were asked by so great a monarch...Moreover, they serve to show his genuine interest in religious matters, and also the good which resulted from these disputes.
'What do the Christians say of Mohammad?' was his first question.

'They say,' was the reply, 'that he was a man who took upon himself the role of a prophet.'
'Then he was not a prophet?'
'That is true, Sire.'

'In other words, he was a false prophet?'
'Yes, Sire.'

At this, the King laughed.
....

whereon the King... beckoned to his Reader, who had kept himself at a distance, saying:

'Come here, Nagibuscao(for such was his name). Do you hear what the Fathers say, that Mohammad is a false prophet?
'Such men,' said the Moor, 'ought to be put to death than listened to.'...
This greatly diverted the King, who laughed and slapped his thighs at merriment, at the same time calling his Reader to come back.
'Sire', said the Father, 'this question is one to be settled by discussion and sound reasoning, not by the threats and calumnies of Nagibuscao.'

'The Father speaks truly,' said the King.'So now, Nagibuscao, prove to us that Mohammad was a prophet.'

Thus called upon, the Reader proceeded to narrate a number of stories from the Al Koran, and after he had spoken for some time, the King stopped him and told the Father to answer him. The latter replied that all these stories were false and was proceeding to support his words by argument when a Moorish Captain interposed and said 'We cannot prove anything by these stories, because the Christians do not hold our stories to be true.'...


At last, one of the Captains said, 'Our difficulty is that the Fathers are not to believe in our books, but we are to believe in theirs. How is it possible for us to dispute with them?'...There was also a Gentile Captain present, to whom the King now turned, asking him if he regarded Mohammad as a prophet.
'Sir,' was the reply, 'how can i know anything of Mohammad?'

'Do you regard him as a false prophet?' asked the King.

The Gentile replied 'Yes sire! He is a false prophet,' at which the King laughed exceedingly.

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.

Rashmun wrote:ashdoc, if charvaka continues to behave like a madcap, we can take our discussions to http://sulekha.forumotion.com if you wish.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:ashdoc, if charvaka continues to behave like a madcap, we can take our discussions to http://sulekha.forumotion.com if you wish.

Hahaha, are you getting annoyed when I imitate your tactics? Is the dotting and repeated posting of the same copy-paste bothering you? Is it madcap behavior to make outlandish arguments like "Aurangzeb/Nizam is secular?"

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:ashdoc, if charvaka continues to behave like a madcap, we can take our discussions to http://sulekha.forumotion.com if you wish.

Hahaha, are you getting annoyed when I imitate your tactics? Is the dotting and repeated posting of the same copy-paste bothering you? Is it madcap behavior to make outlandish arguments like "Aurangzeb/Nizam is secular?"

Charvaka, have i ever tried to hijack any of your trivia or cryptics threads by posting about the Nizams or Razakars in those threads?

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:ashdoc, if charvaka continues to behave like a madcap, we can take our discussions to http://sulekha.forumotion.com if you wish.

Hahaha, are you getting annoyed when I imitate your tactics? Is the dotting and repeated posting of the same copy-paste bothering you? Is it madcap behavior to make outlandish arguments like "Aurangzeb/Nizam is secular?"

Charvaka, have i ever tried to hijack any of your trivia or cryptics threads by posting about the Nizams or Razakars in those threads?

It is not hijacking to post a response on this thread to a comment you made on this thread. You commented on this thread that Aurangzeb is communal because he levied jaziya. I have shown proof that you are wrong. If don't have a response to that, feel free to whine about hijacking.