Aurangzeb , the temple PATRON??????????
Soumitra Bose
The following is an article by Biswambarnath PAndey , a former Governer
of Orissa. I think it would be a little difficult for the BJPs to
castigate him as a commie , or a UF lefty , the article speaks for
itself ......
***************>>>>>>>>>
When I was the Chairman of the Allahabad Municipality (1948-1953), a
case of mutation (Dakhil Kharji) came up for my consideration . It was a
dispute over the property dedicated to the temple of Somoreshwar Nath
Mahadev . After the death of the mahant , there were two claimants for
the property. One of the claimants filed some documents which were in
the possession of the family .The documents were the farmans issued by
Emperor Aurangzeb conferring a Jagir and a cash gift on the temple . I
thought that the farmans were fake . I was wondering how Aurangzeb , who
was known for the demolition of the temples , could confer a jagir on
the temple with the words "THE JAGIR WAS BEING CONFERRED FOR THE PUJA
AND BHOG OF THE DEITY "? How could Aurangzeb identify himself with
idolatry?
I felt sure that the documents were not genuine . But before coming to
any conclusion , I thought it proper to take the opinion of Dr.Sir Tej
Bahadur Sapru , who was a great scholar of Persian . I laid the document
before him and asked for his opinion. After examining the documents
Dr.Sapru said that these farmans of Aurangzeb were genuine .Then he
asked the munshi to bring the file of the case of Jangum Badi Siva
Temple of Varanasi , of which several appeals were pending in the
Allahbad High Court for the past 15 years .The mahant of the Jangum Badi
Siva Temple was also in possession of various other farmans of aurangzeb
granting jagir to the temple .
It was the new image of Aurangzeb that appeared before me. I was very
much surprised .As advised by Dr.Sapru , I sent letters to the mahants
of various important temples of India requesting them to send me
Photostat copies , if they are in the possession of the farmans of
Aurangzeb, granting them jagir for their temples . Another big surprise
was in store for me . I received copies of farmans of Aurangzeb from
great temples of Mahakaleswara ,Ujjain,Balaji Temple -Chitrakut ,
Umanand temple-Gauhati , and the Jain Temple of Shatrunjai and other
temples and Gurudwaras .scattered over northern India . These farmans
were issued over northern India . These farmans were issued from1065
Anno Hijira -1659 CE to 1091 Anno Hijira - 1685 CE.
Though these are only few instances of Aurangzeb’s generous attitude
towards Hindus and their temples , they are enough to show that what the
historians have written about him was biased and is only one side of the
picture . India is a vast land with thousands of temples scattered all
over . If proper research is made , I am confident , many more instances
would come to light which will show Aurangzeb’s benevolent treatment of
non-Muslims .
In the course of my investigations on the farmans of Aurangzeb , I came
in contact with Shri Gyan Chandra and Dr.P.L.Gupta , the former Curator
of Patna Museum .They also have been doing research of great historical
value of Aurangzeb . It pleases me that there were some other
scholars-investigators of truth who were contributing their share in
clearing the image of much maligned Aurangzeb , whom the biased
historians have made the symbol of Muslim rule in India .
Bishambernath Pande
Former Governer of ORISSA
momin
Soumitra Bose wrote:
>
> The following is an article by Biswambarnath PAndey , a former Governer
> of Orissa. I think it would be a little difficult for the BJPs to
> castigate him as a commie , or a UF lefty , the article speaks for
> itself ......
Go read Tarikh-i-Alamgiri, A treatise written during his time by his
court historians. If they dont mention anything about this side
of Aurenzeb than there is very little merit in documents that surface
now...
nikhil_d...@hotmail.com
Well, Well, Well ! I am sure the findings of Pandeyji will be gladly
accepted by the (pseudo)secular politicians without any verification and
I won't surprised if we make amendments to history books and project
Aurangzeb as a great, secular king. The present UF/LF/Cong government
would be eager to do that. But in reality, the mosques at Kashi, Mathura
and many other places are a sad testimony of his deeds. He might have
given some land grants to his Hindu satraps, but don't try to jump to
conclusions without any solid evidence. So far, all
historians/researchers, including Indians and Westerners, are unanimous
about Aurangzeb's bigotry and religious zeal. Any evidence to the
contrary needs to be examined carefully. Had Aurangzeb been secular, he
would have become the greatest emperors of India in the modern history.
But his stubborn determination to destroy the Hindu Maratha power led him
to 2 decades of costly war in deccan. He died in 1707 and with him, the
Mughal glory was gone, forever. BTW, something irrelevant to this
discussion : Aurangzeb rests buried near my native place, Aurangabad(MAH)
Nikhil
sb...@ctp.com wrote:
>
> The following is an article by Biswambarnath PAndey , a former Governer
> of Orissa. I think it would be a little difficult for the BJPs to
> castigate him as a commie , or a UF lefty , the article speaks for
> itself ......
>
> ***************>>>>>>>>>
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Soumitra Bose
That is the exact kind of answer I was waiting for . When I posted this
note with my introduction , neither did I nor did Mr PAndey's note
mentioned anything about Aurangzeb's secularism . Aurangzeb was avowedly
a non-secular ,very islamic and quite often more of a bigot than any
other emperors. But the point is with this fact ,it is proved that he
did patronize some very important non-muslim religious institutions
.This is also true that he oredered Somnath temple to be demolished
(though the reason was not unanimously agreed upon by historians).
Why this dichotomy , how should one explain him demolishing some temples
while patronizing others , especially when he was not a secular emperor
and when he wanted the islamic law to be used as a state religion and
when he himself practiced orhtodox Islam ????
The explanation is simple . He did not break those temples , because
they were hindu-temples and he did not want any hindu temples around ,
in that case hindu-sikh or budhhist-jain temples would not have survived
in so great numbers(I am talking about the big temples) . The reason
again is economic , the remnants of which we see in Bodh Gaya temple .
The present Bodh Gaya temaple is being maintained by the Hindu mahants
who hold the biggest jot in central bihar . The mahant is the biggest
Jotedar in Central Bihar , till today since the days of the peasant
rebellion of Sahajanda Saraswati . These mahants behave like the worst
kind of jotedars , exploiting the share-croppers and agrficultural
labourers , they have their own thug-force the lathials to quell any
protest movements . Till today the peasant movements led by different
organizations are still going on , the principal among them is the one
led by Swami Agnivesh . HE was taken to jail many times for leading this
movement(I am sure it would be a little difficult to taint him as a
commie or a Naxalite).
Those temples were exploiting the local populace and gathering immense
wealth in their Garbhgriha (the famous story of rescuing a raped local
queen from the Garbhgriha of a Venaras temple by the mughal army at the
behest of the local people is well known). MAny such economic
super-powers were demolished by the Mughal army being approached by the
local populace . Those temples who did not have anything to do , did not
experience any such demolitions .
The history of transforming a place of worship into another place of
worship for another community was well in vogue for a long time .
Jagannath temple had been changed to a Hindu temple from a Tantrik
temple , and that was done under the auspices of Gaudadhipati Hussain
Shah , that was a purely political move to spread Vaishnavism and the
rule of Gaud to Orissa renaming it Nilachal . When people of Orissa came
in to ask Chaitanya who now they should follow, he clearly indicated
that the king of Puri now should declare his allegiance to the
Gaudadhipati . This politics went on for a long time .
It is interesting to note that no such transformation created any noted
or known rumblings among the people because those edifices were not
transformed into simple community rooms or administrative buildings ,
but made Musjids . Almost all those transformed edifices were
thenceforth revered by people of all religions and became a Tirth of
Hindus too. This is because of the fact that every religion within the
so-called Hindu diaspora considered every path to be acceptable . That
is the reason that all these transformed spots still remained Hindu
revered spots and muslims had no problem in allowing that , until very
recently when the Hindutvadis started jumping .
That the Marathas were lowest of the low thugs led by Shivaji and others
is a fact very well known outside MAharashtra . These thugs plundered
ORissa as Aurangzeb's rule did not reach there . Alibardi khan had to
make a truce with these and leave ORissa. Only later Siraj kicked these
out of Orissa . Aurqangzeb was largely in-effective in handling with
these thugs , as his army was led by the in-effective Saista Khan .
MArathas were not fought only by Aurangzeb . All the Hindu kingdoms of
the east did fight them , the tweleve BhNuiyas did so . So enmity
towards Maratha thugs cannot be construed as anti-Hindu , it was plain
and simple anti-thuggery .
Abhijit Mitra
I think it's important to maintain a certain semblance of objectivity in this
regard. I don't find it hard at all to believe that the history that we are
taught about Aurangzeb is slighlty biased, after all, most historical records
indicate the bias of the narrator as well. However, where there is smoke there
has to be fire, and so, it is equally hard for me to believe that Aurangzeb
was uniformly benevolent towards Hindus. I believe the 'truth' lies somewhere
in the middle.
-A.M.
nikhil_d...@hotmail.com
In article <33FA26...@ctp.com>,
sb...@ctp.com wrote:
>
> (Stuff Deleted)
>
> It is interesting to note that no such transformation created any noted
> or known rumblings among the people because those edifices were not
> transformed into simple community rooms or administrative buildings ,
> but made Musjids . Almost all those transformed edifices were
> thenceforth revered by people of all religions and became a Tirth of
> Hindus too. This is because of the fact that every religion within the
> so-called Hindu diaspora considered every path to be acceptable . That
> is the reason that all these transformed spots still remained Hindu
> revered spots and muslims had no problem in allowing that , until very
> recently when the Hindutvadis started jumping .
How can you say that the transformations didn't create any rumblings
among ordinary Hindus? And even if they were unhappy, were they in any
position to oppose the tyrannical rule? It's true that Hindu religion is
very flexible and can accept many forms of worship. But it is hard to
believe that destruction of important temples like Kashi, Mathura etc.
were accepted by the common Hindu populace gladly! It is a favourite ploy
of (pseudo)securaists to compare all ancient Hindu temples with symbols
of exploitation. Some of them even justify the plunderings of Mehmud of
Ghazni. It is a very well known fact that Aurangzeb was an Islamic
crusader. The earlier Moguls(notably Akbar) were much more secular. Even
the persecution of Sikhs reached a high point during Aurangzeb's rule.
> That the Marathas were lowest of the low thugs led by Shivaji and others
> is a fact very well known outside MAharashtra . These thugs plundered
> ORissa as Aurangzeb's rule did not reach there . Alibardi khan had to
> make a truce with these and leave ORissa. Only later Siraj kicked these
> out of Orissa . Aurqangzeb was largely in-effective in handling with
> these thugs , as his army was led by the in-effective Saista Khan .
> MArathas were not fought only by Aurangzeb . All the Hindu kingdoms of
> the east did fight them , the tweleve BhNuiyas did so . So enmity
> towards Maratha thugs cannot be construed as anti-Hindu , it was plain
> and simple anti-thuggery .
Now you are getting off the hook. You are liberally mixing "Maratha,
Shivaji, thuggery, invasion of Orissa, Shaista Khan" without any regard
to historic facts and chronology!!! Your lack of knowlwdge is pathetic.
Shivaji led his handful of forces in a series of tactical battles which
delivered death blows to the Deccan sultanates. The fact that Shivaji's
rule was secular and just is very well known outside Maharashtra (even in
the West). Probably you have read the marxist versions of history that
always tries to undermine the national symbols. And Maratha invasion of
Orissa took place around 1740, roughly 60 years after Shivaji's death! It
was undertaken by the Bhosle of Nagpur of Maratha confederacy who were
later defeated by the mainstream Maratha army led by Peshwa. And yes,
Shastia Khan was completeley defeated and humiliated in Pune by Shivaji.
Afterwards, he was dispatched to Bengal by Aurangzeb. But this is not I
was referring to. After the death of Shivaji, Aurangzeb came to Deccan
with the sole intention of destroying the nascent Maratha kingdom. His
acts of plunder in maharashtra are unparalleled in history. And you think
this as anti-thuggery! He tortured Sambhaji (Shivaji's son) to death as
he refused to embrace Islam. But the spirit of Shivaji lived on. The
mighty Aurangzeb lived in Deccan for 26 years but could not crush the
spirit of Swarajya(self rule) in Maharashtra. Do you think this
extraordinary flame of freedom was generated by a bunch of thugs? Your
arguments are laughable.The rise of thug cult was a phenomenon of early
19th century. The Maratha power had lost its glory by that time. Some of
the rouge elements employed by them,notably Pindaris, engaged in random
acts of plunder in N. India. But this phenomenon was almost unknown in
Maharashtra. This so called thuggy cult was checked by a bigger(maybe the
biggest) thug, East India Company! Next time, before writing about
history, take some efforts to examine various sources.My knowledge about
Maratha history comes from various Indian(Marathi and non-Marathi)
authors as well as some Western historians. Good Luck!
Nikhil : "The biggest remnant of colonial rule in India is the manipulated
history texts and a crop of fake, pseudo-secular historians"
in...@hotmail.com
> is a fact very well known outside MAharashtra . These thugs plundered
> ORissa as Aurangzeb's rule did not reach there . Alibardi khan had to
> make a truce with these and leave ORissa. Only later Siraj kicked these
> out of Orissa . Aurqangzeb was largely in-effective in handling with
> these thugs , as his army was led by the in-effective Saista Khan .
> MArathas were not fought only by Aurangzeb . All the Hindu kingdoms of
> the east did fight them , the tweleve BhNuiyas did so . So enmity
> towards Maratha thugs cannot be construed as anti-Hindu , it was plain
> and simple anti-thuggery .
What a disgrace ??. You call the great Marathas led by Chatrapathi
Shivaji as "lowest of the low thugs". But for Shivaji and his chivalry
"Bharath" would have been Islamized by the treacherous and nefarious
designs of Aurangazeb and his Bahumani cronies. Aurangazeb is the worst
among the worst thugs. Even no other Muslim ruler has parallel to his
brutality and intolerance to non-Muslims. The Mogul empire reached its
record nadir during his regime and the eventual collapse.
Shivaji is a great National Hero. Your statement that Shivaji is known
very little outside Maharastra is not tenable. Even a foreign visitor of
that time like Nockoloe Manuachi (Excuse me if I have wrongly spealt his
name) of Italy has given detail narration of the popular rule of Shivaji
at that time. I am not from Maharastra, yet I hold Shivaji in very high
esteem.
Except for those lowest of the lowest self esteemed self styled champions
of "Marxism" and "Bogus socialists" from Bengal (Excuse me Definitely
NOT all Bengalis), every body else including the Congress
UF/JD/JD(Laloo)/JD(Aloo) /AD/BSP/PMK etc. etc.. whether they are from
Maharastra or other states, consider Chatrapathi Shivaji as a Great
National Hero. I bet, Comrade Jyoti Busu or any of his Marxist cronies
would dare to call Shivaji as a "leader of the lowest of the low thugs".
Gangadhar Sharma
Abhijit Mitra
Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
>How come I only hear the praise and eulogy of Shivaji from a
>MAharashtrian or a BJP only??????? That is a question I failed to get
>answer.
That's a very good question. Fact is, Shivajis' fight was for Marathwada. This
implies a certain exclusivism which is totally uncalled for in modern India.
The reason the BJP and their allies (especially the Shiv Sena, which happens to
be named after Chattrapati Shivaji) adore the man is because he is percived to
have led the fight against Aurangzeb and we all know why the BJP doesn't like
Aurangzeb. Hint: his religion.
-A.M.
momin
My My..dont you love these commie ass wipes! I am sure the UF Govt. will
be eager to give this one a "Akhil Sahhitya" award for originality....
nikhil_d...@hotmail.com
In article <8721139...@dejanews.com>,
> > is a fact very well known outside MAharashtra . These thugs plundered
> > ORissa as Aurangzeb's rule did not reach there . Alibardi khan had to
> > make a truce with these and leave ORissa. Only later Siraj kicked these
> > out of Orissa . Aurqangzeb was largely in-effective in handling with
> > these thugs , as his army was led by the in-effective Saista Khan .
> > MArathas were not fought only by Aurangzeb . All the Hindu kingdoms of
> > the east did fight them , the tweleve BhNuiyas did so . So enmity
> > towards Maratha thugs cannot be construed as anti-Hindu , it was plain
> > and simple anti-thuggery .
>
> Shivaji as "lowest of the low thugs". But for Shivaji and his chivalry
> "Bharath" would have been Islamized by the treacherous and nefarious
> designs of Aurangazeb and his Bahumani cronies. Aurangazeb is the worst
> among the worst thugs. Even no other Muslim ruler has parallel to his
> brutality and intolerance to non-Muslims. The Mogul empire reached its
> record nadir during his regime and the eventual collapse.
>
> Shivaji is a great National Hero. Your statement that Shivaji is known
> very little outside Maharastra is not tenable. Even a foreign visitor of
> that time like Nockoloe Manuachi (Excuse me if I have wrongly spealt his
> name) of Italy has given detail narration of the popular rule of Shivaji
> at that time. I am not from Maharastra, yet I hold Shivaji in very high
> esteem.
>
> Except for those lowest of the lowest self esteemed self styled champions
> of "Marxism" and "Bogus socialists" from Bengal (Excuse me Definitely
> NOT all Bengalis), every body else including the Congress
> UF/JD/JD(Laloo)/JD(Aloo) /AD/BSP/PMK etc. etc.. whether they are from
> Maharastra or other states, consider Chatrapathi Shivaji as a Great
> National Hero. I bet, Comrade Jyoti Busu or any of his Marxist cronies
>
> Gangadhar Sharma
>
Thanks for your input, Mr. Sharma. As you have rightly pointed out,
Shivaji is a national hero. I don't know how Soumitra Bose and A. Mitra
got this bizzarre idea that he is little recognized outside Maharashtra.
It is important to remember that Shivaji started his empire from scratch.
Obviously, most of the time he was fighting to consolidate and expand his
nascent Swarajya in Maharashtra. But by the time of his death, his rule
had spread to signifcant parts of Gujarat and Karnataka. It is idiotic to
say that he fought for Maratha hegemony over other states. His rule is
often referred as Hindvi Swarajya. For this reason, he has become a
symbol of nationalism and self rule among Indians. There are countless
memorials, statues of Shivaji outside Mahatashtra. Now, lets take the
case of Bengalis. There was a beautiful poem composed by Rabindranath
Tagore praising Shivaji's exploits. It was translated in Marathi by
P.L.Deshpande. Also, Netaji's declaration of Azad hind govt. had
mentioned many Maratha generals/warriors who fought the British in 18th
and 19th century. I am sure a majority of Bengalis recognize this. The
likes of Soumitra and Mitra are unncessarily causing controversies by
spreading lies. Their defence of Aurangzeb is beyond any logic.
Nikhil
Mathew Ranjit Mathews
Abhijit Mitra wrote:
> have led the fight against Aurangzeb and we all know why the BJP
> doesn't like Aurangzeb. Hint: his religion.
Nope. His intolerance, not his religion.
jit
momin wrote:
>
> P Dwivedi wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Nikhil,
> > > Shivaji like Rana Pratap is held in high regard almost throughout India (I have
> > > stayed in Bombay, Calcutta, Chittaranjan, Kanpur, I am also a Bengali). Many
> > > Bengali parents even name their kids Shivaji (Shivaji Banerjee was a very
> > > popular goal-keeper for Mohun Bagan in the eighties) and Pratap. How is that
> > > possible if Bengalis do not have a reverence for these heroes? When I stayed
> > > in Chittaranjan in W.Bengal my parents would often take me to the Rama Krishna
> > > Mission in Jam Tara. I recall some of the Maharajs of the RamaKrishna mission
> > > often discussing the teachings of Shivaji's guru, Sant Ramdas at the Mission.
> > >
> > > I was laughing when I read Soumitra's post about Aurangzeb's secular
> > > credentials. You do not have to take him seriously, do you :-)?
> > >
> > > -Sambit.
> >
> > Very true, and well said. I do not know why this gentleman (S Bose)
> > attempts to post things without any substance. It appears that he
> > consider himself an authority on many issues associated with India.
> > Recently, he was ignorantly talking about un-popularity of "non-filmi"
> > Hindi songs.
>
> Actually this commie ass-wipe has be subscribing to Kashnet and so it
> should not be hard to figure him out....
I stopped reading any posting from this naxalite idiot.
Communists call BJP revisionists, they themselves indulge
in the same crime before anyone else. Geez, now we have to
take craps like "secular Aurangzeb"!! This is why commies
lose credibility, like when fanatic idiots claim the
existence of Vedic nuclear bombs!!
These days it looks like BJP and CPIM are singing the
same tune when it comes to economy and liberalization.
One is a feudal obscurantist and the other is a
lazy, paranoid throwback to the socialist era.
Soumitra Bose
nikhil_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <8721139...@dejanews.com>,
> in...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <33FA26...@ctp.com>,
> > sb...@ctp.com wrote:
> > >
> > > is a fact very well known outside MAharashtra . These thugs plundered
> > > ORissa as Aurangzeb's rule did not reach there . Alibardi khan had to
> > > make a truce with these and leave ORissa. Only later Siraj kicked these
> > > out of Orissa . Aurqangzeb was largely in-effective in handling with
> > > these thugs , as his army was led by the in-effective Saista Khan .
> > > MArathas were not fought only by Aurangzeb . All the Hindu kingdoms of
> > > the east did fight them , the tweleve BhNuiyas did so . So enmity
> > > towards Maratha thugs cannot be construed as anti-Hindu , it was plain
> > > and simple anti-thuggery .
> >
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
all Indians ????? Rabindranath's poem was regretted by himself later on
(Sunil Ganguli's personal research even corroborated that fact ) .
Every Military ruler might start their rule from scratch . If that is a
great feat then all the despotic military rule is to be now sactified .
Hitler did it too. Mussolini, Tojo,Franco , who not ????The Chengis Khan
, NAdir Shah, who not ??????Since when a self-asserting Hindu started
extolling a war criminal . What is the difference between Milovan
Karadovic or the Serb leaders and Shivaji or for that matter Aurangzeb
?? All of these are criminals against humanity , their own people .
Khalid Lateef
Soumitra Bose correctly points out the economic, social and political
reasons for Aurangzeb's behavior. It is possible for a ruthless king
like Aurangzeb to destroy some temples while patronizing the others.
I'd like to add one more aspect of Indian politics i.e. the scale and
scope of political movements. Indian intellectuals and scholars often
miss the important fact of increased globalization in the subcontinent
with the advent of British take over.
The communications improved by thousands of times between Aurangzeb's time
verses the situation around the turn of this century. Roads, phones,
radios and newspapers brought very diverse and distant regions within
reach of the governments as well as politicians.
In Aurangzeb's time, due to the shear lack of communications,
political movements were rather limited to small pockets. This made it
possible for him to be cruel in certain regions while being a good
guy in the others.
peace
KL
pra...@mail.ilap.com
Given the choice you would probably call Aurangezeb the saviour of
Hinduism. Aurangezeb was the worst thing that happened to India and
Hindus. The man had nothing other than the conversion of Hindus to Islam
on his agenda and the only nation who called his bogey was the brave
Marathas.
Three cheers to Shivaji and his brave men.
Prasad Gopinath
P.Siddharth
There are 7 communists left in the world.2 are in jail in soviet union
for duty done during Stalin's regime- massacre of children.4 are in
mental asylums and one has escaped and come to U.S. and calls himself as
soumitra Bose. He is looking for the stalinists days and also hopes
China will take over India and then he could be given a sword to kill
innocent women and children. Jyoti Basu is a communist in name only as
he believes in attracting foreign capital to West Bengal.
When a person like that calls Shivaji a rogue and Aurangazeb a saint
everyone gets excited. I will be honored to be put down by Soumitra
Bose. Then I know that I am on the right track. Soumitra Bose's heroes
are Ceaser Borgia, Hitler, Stalin,Mao,Gengiz Khan,Karadavic,and Jeffrey
Dahmer. Anyone who fought for independence is a scoundrel.
A person like this needs help and treatment during this acute phase and
so I request psychiatrists who read the net to commit him so that his
screw can be tightened.
Mathew Ranjit Mathews
in...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Aurangazeb is the worst
> among the worst thugs. Even no other Muslim ruler has parallel to
> his brutality and intolerance to non-Muslims.
In North India, yes. In South India, I rather fancy that Malik Kafur /
Allaudin Khilji and the destruction of Vijayanagar evoke greater
horror than Aurangazeb's doings.
Razib Khan
In article <33FCC1...@unforgettable.com>, j...@unforgettable.com says...
>
<snip>
>These days it looks like BJP and CPIM are singing the
>same tune when it comes to economy and liberalization.
>One is a feudal obscurantist and the other is a
>lazy, paranoid throwback to the socialist era.
<snip>
Amen and 3 cheers!
BOOM
Soumitra Bose wrote:
> so what about the patronizing expressed in the original post ????
>Is that
> intolerance .
> I guess Abhijit's statement was very candid and factual ....
YOU GUESS. YOU GUESS. THE GREAT SHITMITRA FROM THE EXTEREMLY EXTERMELY
POOR COUNTRY OF INDIA AND FROM THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL WHOSE ONLY CLAIM
TO FAME IS TO HAVE THE SHITTIEST CITY IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE WHERE
INDIANS CRAP IN PARALLEL BECAUSE ITS SO OVERCROWDED IS GUESSING. THIS
SELF RIGHTEOUS INDIAN PRICK IS GUESSING. MY MY SHITMITRA WHAT IS THE
WORLD COMING TO. I THOUGHT YOU KNEW EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE WORLD.
momin
Khalid Lateef wrote:
> In Aurangzeb's time, due to the shear lack of communications,
> political movements were rather limited to small pockets. This made it
> possible for him to be cruel in certain regions while being a good
> guy in the others.
Not entirely true. Communications were rather improving in Aurenzebs
time because of general global progress in mode of travel etc. Bernier,
(I think) who visited Aurenzebs Darbar and India in general gave a
good eye-witness account of what he observed...
momin
Soumitra Bose wrote:
> No denying that. As far as Bengal is concerned Aurangzeb and Shivaji are
> equally low-life criminals , equally low-life thugs , equally low-life
> alien burglars , and that is why we fought them and did not allow to
> settle their dirty feet for long .
Ah, our sonar commie bangla... rest could go to dogs....
> Do not care , from Bengal's perspective . Our forefathers (both Hindus
> and Muslims ) never accepted Mughals (even Akbar) as our rulers.
Why would our ass-wipe care to look beyond Bangla???
> May be , when the nation stops at the boundaries of Maharashtra .At
> least the name of the state is an eulogistic oxymoron by itself .
> Neither it is any kind of Rashtra , nor it is Maha enough .
My, My...now eat dirt all you Desis who long for "Bharat Mahan"....
> Up to you..... Freedom of speech and belief is still a basic principle
> in India and US (last time i checked , and that is a minute ago)
Wow, a minute ago! surely a miracle of information superhighway...
sub...@learningtree.com
You would be excited to know that there is one more, me ! ok, ok, even
though I am a 100% pure p-secularist, I can only aspire to be a
fully-fledged commie.
We fully appreciate that most histrionic fools cannot get into their
fool-proof skulls that Shivaji was incapable of doing wrong and that the
A-zeb could do any good. For that reason, we have the easy-to-understand
concept of 100% pure Good vs. 100% All Bad, to keep our simple lives
simple for the educated simpletons.
Subir De.
BTW, I prefer Shivaji's name, to A-zeeb's or even Mao's, but do feel free
to spend a few patriotic moments to call me a name.
In article <33FCED...@idt.net>,
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
jit
P.Siddharth wrote:
>
> There are 7 communists left in the world.2 are in jail in soviet union
> for duty done during Stalin's regime- massacre of children.4 are in
> mental asylums and one has escaped and come to U.S. and calls himself as
> soumitra Bose. He is looking for the stalinists days and also hopes
> China will take over India and then he could be given a sword to kill
> innocent women and children. Jyoti Basu is a communist in name only as
> he believes in attracting foreign capital to West Bengal.
>
> When a person like that calls Shivaji a rogue and Aurangazeb a saint
> everyone gets excited. I will be honored to be put down by Soumitra
> Bose. Then I know that I am on the right track. Soumitra Bose's heroes
> are Ceaser Borgia, Hitler, Stalin,Mao,Gengiz Khan,Karadavic,and Jeffrey
> Dahmer. Anyone who fought for independence is a scoundrel.
> A person like this needs help and treatment during this acute phase and
> so I request psychiatrists who read the net to commit him so that his
> screw can be tightened.
You gotta remember these commie bastards eulogized Hitler
in 1938 when the monster named Stalin signed peace and
friendship treaty with Germany. Never mind that Stalin
sent thousands of innocent Russians to their death in
forced labour camps in Siberia, CPIM and Naxalites still
revere Stalin as their patron saint. Naxalites are
such low-life scoundrels and anti-nationals that they
used say "China's chairman is our chairman"! Talk about
political imperialism and slave mentality. Naxalites
and even CPIM don't have any respect for democratic
norms or honesty. For them, end justifies the means.
Unfortunately (or fortunately for the rest of the world)
the means become the end, as is evident in the failure
of the communist regimes all over the world.
nikhil_d...@hotmail.com
In article <33FCC6...@ctp.com>,
sb...@ctp.com wrote:
>
> nikhil_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <8721139...@dejanews.com>,
> > in...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <33FA26...@ctp.com>,
> > > sb...@ctp.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > is a fact very well known outside MAharashtra . These thugs plundered
> > > > ORissa as Aurangzeb's rule did not reach there . Alibardi khan had to
> > > > make a truce with these and leave ORissa. Only later Siraj kicked these
> > > > out of Orissa . Aurqangzeb was largely in-effective in handling with
> > > > these thugs , as his army was led by the in-effective Saista Khan .
> > > > MArathas were not fought only by Aurangzeb . All the Hindu kingdoms of
> > > > the east did fight them , the tweleve BhNuiyas did so . So enmity
> > > > towards Maratha thugs cannot be construed as anti-Hindu , it was plain
> > > > and simple anti-thuggery .
> > >
> > > Shivaji as "lowest of the low thugs". But for Shivaji and his chivalry
> > > "Bharath" would have been Islamized by the treacherous and nefarious
> > > among the worst thugs. Even no other Muslim ruler has parallel to
his
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
> all Indians ?????
> Rabindranath's poem was regretted by himself later on
> (Sunil Ganguli's personal research even corroborated that fact ) .
Who is this Sunil Ganguli??? It is hard to believe that Tagore, who wrote
such a eulogizing poem about Shivaji, suddenly changed his mind! Do you
mean he became a communist? Please, don't demean the Gurudev. I said
Netaji praised several maratha warriors of 18th and 19th century. I am
posting the declaration of Azad Hind govt. at the end of this post. And
don't tell me that some flimsy researcher like Ganguli or Pandey found
out that Netaji regretted it afterwards!
>
> Every Military ruler might start their rule from scratch . If that is a
> great feat then all the despotic military rule is to be now sactified .
> Hitler did it too. Mussolini, Tojo,Franco , who not ????
Oh god! Tell me honestly whether you believe in your own arguments or you
are just posting them to create some sort of record. Mussolini, Tojo,
Franco didn't build a nation. They staged military coup or political
coups and took over the existing nations. They didn't repel any foreign,
tyrant rule in this process. Now I am getting tired because your next
question will be how Shivaji is different from Gen Zia or Somoza?
>The Chengis Khan
> , NAdir Shah, who not ??????Since when a self-asserting Hindu started
> extolling a war criminal . What is the difference between Milovan
> Karadovic or the Serb leaders and Shivaji or for that matter Aurangzeb
> ?? All of these are criminals against humanity , their own people .
What a joke. Are you a comedian? Nadir Shah, Karadzic and Chengis are
known for genocide of millions of innocent civilians. If your history
books tell the same about Shivaji, then let's stop discussion. When you
called him a war criminal, I didn't exactly get angry. I am laughing at
you for trying to start a senseless debate.By the way, I know that
Shivaji is revered by all Indians. The posts from Jit, Siddharth,
Gangadhar, Mathew, Sambit, momin, Prasad etc only confirm the fact
(thanks to all of them). In fact, Marathi people don't have the monopoly
over the glory of Shivaji. He is a symbol of Indian nationalism. By the
way, keep posting your views. We badly need some comic relief on this ng!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proclamation of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind
"After their first defeat at the hands of the British in 1757 in Bengal,
the Indian people fought an uninterrupted series of hard and bitter
battles over a stretch of one hundred years. The history of this period
teams with examples of unparalleled heroism and self-sacrifice. And in
the pages of that history, the names of Sirajuddoula and Mohanlal of
Bengal, Haider Ali, Tipu Sultan and Velu Tampi of South India, Appa Sahib
Bhonsle and Peshwa Baji Rao of Maharashtra, the Begums of Oudh, Sardar
Shyam Singh Atariwala of Punjab and last, but not the least, Rani
Laxmibai of Jhansi, Tantia Topi, Maharaj Kunwar Singh of Dumraon and Nana
Sahib - among others - the names of all these warriors are forever
engraved in letters of gold. "Having been constituted as the Provisional
Government of Azad Hind by the Indian Independence of Azad Hind by the
Indian Independence League in East Asia, we enter upon our duties with a
full sense of responsibility that has devolved on us. ........It will be
the task of the Provisional Government to launch and to conduct the
struggle that will bring about the expulsion of the British and their
allies from the soil of India. It will then be the task of the
Provisional Government to launch and to conduct the struggle that will
bring about the expulsion of the British and their allies from the soil
of India. It will then be the task of the Provisional Government to bring
about the establishment of a Permanent National Government of Azad Hind
Constituted in accordance with the will of the Indian people and enjoying
their confidence. After the British and their allies are overthrown and
until a Permanent National Government of Azad Hind is set up on Indian
soil, the Provisional Government will administer the affairs of the
country in trust for the Indian people. The Provisional Government is
entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Indian. It
guarantees religious liberty as well as equal rights and equal
opportunities to all its Citizens........... In the name of God, in the
name of bygone generations who have welded the Indian people into one
nation and in the name of dead heroes who have bequeathed to us a
tradition of heroism and self sacrifice - we call upon the Indian People
to rally round our banner and to strike for India's freedom. We call upon
them to launch the final struggle against the British and all their
allies in India and to prosecute that struggle with valor and
perseverance and with full faith in Final Victory - until the enemy is
expelled from Indian soil and the Indian people are once again a Free
Nation.
Signed on behalf of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind - Subhas
Chandra Bose, Head of the State, Prime Minister and Minister for War,
Minister for Foreign Affairs Supreme Commander of the Indian National
Army.
Captain, Miss Lakshmi (Women's organization), S.A. Ayer (Publicity and
Propaganda,
Lt.-Col. A.C. Chatterjee (Finance), Lt.-Col. Aziz Ahmed, Lt.-Col. N.S. Bhagat,
Col. J.K. Bhonsle, Lt.-Col. Guljara Singh, Lt.-Col. M.Z. Kiwani,
Lt.-Col. AD Logenathan, Lt.-Col. Ehsan Quadir, Lt.-Col.Shaw Nawaj
(Representative of three Armed Forces), A.M. Sahay, Secretary (with Ministerial
Rank), Rash Behari Bose Supreme Adviser), Karim Gani, Debnath Das, D.M. Khan,
A. Yellappa, J. Thivy, Sardar Ishar Singh (Advisors), A.N. Sarkar (Legal
Adviser).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Nikhil
P.S. Apart from Bajirao and Appa Sahib Bhonsle; Tatia Tope, Rani Laxmibai
and Nanasahib were all Marathi warriors.
in...@hotmail.com
In article <5tfqm1$i...@remus.rutgers.edu>,
mi...@remus.rutgers.edu (Abhijit Mitra) wrote:
>
> Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
>
> >How come I only hear the praise and eulogy of Shivaji from a
> >MAharashtrian or a BJP only??????? That is a question I failed to get
> >answer.
>
> That's a very good question. Fact is, Shivajis' fight was for Marathwada. This
> implies a certain exclusivism which is totally uncalled for in modern India.
> The reason the BJP and their allies (especially the Shiv Sena, which happens
to
> be named after Chattrapati Shivaji) adore the man is because he is percived to
> Aurangzeb. Hint: his religion.
>
Just a continuation of your logic. You know why UF/JD/Congress/and other
bogus marxists,leftists and host of other pseudo-secularists like
Aurangazeb.???
Hint: his religion.
Gangadhar Sharma
Soumitra Bose
Good , Good , another sample of a BJP language !!! We already have got
so many examples of their education system .This is another addition
.How come these BJPs fall so nicely and sqarely in any trap any where
???? Thank you again for falling into the trap.
Soumitra Bose
P.Siddharth wrote:
>
> There are 7 communists left in the world.2 are in jail in soviet union
> for duty done during Stalin's regime- massacre of children.4 are in
> mental asylums and one has escaped and come to U.S. and calls himself as
> soumitra Bose. He is looking for the stalinists days and also hopes
> China will take over India and then he could be given a sword to kill
> innocent women and children. Jyoti Basu is a communist in name only as
> he believes in attracting foreign capital to West Bengal.
>
> When a person like that calls Shivaji a rogue and Aurangazeb a saint
> everyone gets excited. I will be honored to be put down by Soumitra
> Bose. Then I know that I am on the right track. Soumitra Bose's heroes
> are Ceaser Borgia, Hitler, Stalin,Mao,Gengiz Khan,Karadavic,and Jeffrey
> Dahmer. Anyone who fought for independence is a scoundrel.
> A person like this needs help and treatment during this acute phase and
> so I request psychiatrists who read the net to commit him so that his
> screw can be tightened.
these people also have tall claims but are criminals no doubt (My
previous post , the order of the names is the same too) Does that mean
that this person (who lost all logic and history and starts insinuating)
has run out of names and thus picks the same names in the same order and
reverses the characteristic.
Now bringing Shivaji and Aurangzeb in the same rank has led the BJPs go
berserk and bonkers .Good , that is where it hurts most. Thanks to let
us know.
Soumitra Bose
ni====-----------------------
> > > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
> > Let us know where Netaji mentioned Shivaji as a great NAtional Hero for
> > all Indians ?????
> > Rabindranath's poem was regretted by himself later on
> > (Sunil Ganguli's personal research even corroborated that fact ) .
>
> Who is this Sunil Ganguli??? It is hard to believe that Tagore, who wrote
> such a eulogizing poem about Shivaji, suddenly changed his mind! Do you
> mean he became a communist? Please, don't demean the Gurudev. I said
> Netaji praised several maratha warriors of 18th and 19th century. I am
> posting the declaration of Azad Hind govt. at the end of this post. And
> don't tell me that some flimsy researcher like Ganguli or Pandey found
> out that Netaji regretted it afterwards!
>
My question was very pertinent and to the point . Please show us where
did Subhas Bose eulogize Shivaji as a NAtional Hero ????? No need to
replace Shivaji by others warriors at your own convenience .
Rabindranath's displeasure with Shivaji (later on) was amply recorded by
his comments and interviews by the Congress leaders . Even the "Trasfer
of Power -1942 -1947 " mentions many such letters which were reported by
the British govt .
> >
> > Every Military ruler might start their rule from scratch . If that is a
> > great feat then all the despotic military rule is to be now sactified .
> > Hitler did it too. Mussolini, Tojo,Franco , who not ????
>
> Oh god! Tell me honestly whether you believe in your own arguments or you
> are just posting them to create some sort of record. Mussolini, Tojo,
> Franco didn't build a nation. They staged military coup or political
> coups and took over the existing nations. They didn't repel any foreign,
> tyrant rule in this process. Now I am getting tired because your next
> question will be how Shivaji is different from Gen Zia or Somoza?
Shivaji did not create Indian nation too...... The point is simple any
one who has gained territories by military power cannot be called a
great leader necessarily . Shivaji was another warlord like those
thousands in the parting days of Mughal dynasty and the in-efficient
rule of Aurangzeb .
>
>
>The Chengis Khan
> > , NAdir Shah, who not ??????Since when a self-asserting Hindu started
> > extolling a war criminal . What is the difference between Milovan
> > Karadovic or the Serb leaders and Shivaji or for that matter Aurangzeb
> > ?? All of these are criminals against humanity , their own people .
>
> What a joke. Are you a comedian? Nadir Shah, Karadzic and Chengis are
> known for genocide of millions of innocent civilians. If your history
> books tell the same about Shivaji, then let's stop discussion. When
Marathas killed, looted , raped and maimed one fifth of the total
coastal Bengal in a decade . That is the history of Bargi Hangama .
you
> called him a war criminal, I didn't exactly get angry. I am laughing at
> you for trying to start a senseless debate.By the way, I know that
> Shivaji is revered by all Indians. The posts from Jit, Siddharth,
> Gangadhar, Mathew, Sambit, momin, Prasad etc only confirm the fact
> (thanks to all of them). In fact, Marathi people don't have the monopoly
> over the glory of Shivaji.
You are right , that was my exact point . All those who have repeatedly
known to post fanatic VHP posts , posts against other religionists ,
have teemed up. See, it is so easy to create a camp division with the
appropriate topic. I am so glad this time too fell in the oft-proven
trap..... I couldn't be happier..
Which of them were with Shivaji may I ask ???? There are wonderful
Maharastrian warriors in our independance struggle . The Chapekar
Borthers , JyotiRao Phule all are revered throughout India , much more
than Shivaji . Maharashtra saw the famous RIN revolt, Royal Air Force
revolt . A big number of terrorists came from Maharashtra (they are not
known under Shiva Sena rule) Many muslim freedom fighters did come from
Maharashtra . Netaji never said a word about pre-british struggle about
Shivaji . With a kind of patriotism he had , he cannot be expected to
say anything against rulers fo the pre-british era .
Soumitra Bose
pra...@mail.ilap.com wrote:
>
> Given the choice you would probably call Aurangezeb the saviour of
> Hinduism. Aurangezeb was the worst thing that happened to India and
> Hindus. The man had nothing other than the conversion of Hindus to Islam
> on his agenda and the only nation who called his bogey was the brave
> Marathas.
>
> Three cheers to Shivaji and his brave men.
>
> Prasad Gopinath
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
There is no proof of massive conversion during Aurangzeb . As a matter
of fact the Hindu movements were most popular during the Aurangzeb .
And the number of conversions taking place during Akbar was much more
than during Aurangzeb . I know for a fact that in the whole of eastern
india Aurangzeb did not have any remarkable effect in conversion . By
that time the conversions done through the Sufis were all complete
.Aurangzeb's rule started the era of some kind of Hindu revivalism
Soumitra Bose
Mathew Ranjit Mathews wrote:
>
> nikhil_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > It is important to remember that Shivaji started his empire from
> > scratch. Obviously, most of the time he was fighting to consolidate
> > and expand his nascent Swarajya in Maharashtra.
> > But by the time of his death, his rule had spread to signifcant parts
> > of Gujarat and Karnataka. It is idiotic to say that he fought for
> > Maratha hegemony over other states. His rule is
> > often referred as Hindvi Swarajya.
>
> an alliance with the Sultan(?) of Golconda (!!!) to wrest Bangalore away
> from his half brother Ekoji.
>
> > For this reason, he has become a symbol of nationalism and self rule
> > among Indians. There are countless memorials, statues of Shivaji
> > outside Mahatashtra. Now, lets take the case of Bengalis. There was a
> > beautiful poem composed by Rabindranath Tagore praising Shivaji's
> > exploits. It was translated in Marathi by P.L.Deshpande. Also,
> > Netaji's declaration of Azad hind govt. had mentioned many Maratha
> > generals/warriors who fought the British in 18th and 19th century.
BTW , as claimed by the BJPs , which article of MAthews did extoll the
role of Shivaji as a great national hero ??????
Soumitra Bose
in...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <5tfqm1$i...@remus.rutgers.edu>,
> mi...@remus.rutgers.edu (Abhijit Mitra) wrote:
> >
> > Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
> >
> > >How come I only hear the praise and eulogy of Shivaji from a
> > >MAharashtrian or a BJP only??????? That is a question I failed to get
> > >answer.
> >
> > That's a very good question. Fact is, Shivajis' fight was for Marathwada. This
> > implies a certain exclusivism which is totally uncalled for in modern India.
> > The reason the BJP and their allies (especially the Shiv Sena, which happens
> to
> > be named after Chattrapati Shivaji) adore the man is because he is percived to
> > have led the fight against Aurangzeb and we all know why the BJP doesn't like
> > Aurangzeb. Hint: his religion.
> >
> > -A.M.
>
> Just a continuation of your logic. You know why UF/JD/Congress/and other
> bogus marxists,leftists and host of other pseudo-secularists like
> Aurangazeb.???
>
> Hint: his religion.
>
> Gangadhar Sharma
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Since as of now they hold the majority of Indian electorates' support ,
so why is not Islam the state religion of India ?????
Pran Lal
>No point in putting words in my mouth .
>
>There is no proof of massive conversion during Aurangzeb . As a matter
>of fact the Hindu movements were most popular during the Aurangzeb .
Ever heard about the Sikhs. Why do you think that
they turned militant. Did Aurangzeb had anything to
do with this.
nachiketa
nachiketa
Pran Lal
Subir De wrote:
. For that reason, we have the easy-to-understand
>concept of 100% pure Good vs. 100% All Bad, to keep our simple lives
>simple for the educated simpletons.
>
I have to agree here. But then this rationale should not
be used to smear the differences between "more or less
good guys" and "more of less bad guys" either. What do you
say?
nachiketa
nachiketa
Supratik Das
On 22 Aug 1997, Abhijit Mitra wrote:
> Shivaji may have fought against Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb also may have caused much
> pain to Hindus. However, I think you guys are losing sight of one very
> significant aspect. Shivajis fight was not for "India", atleast not in the
> sense that we know it. His fight was against Aurangzeb. His fight was to
> liberate the Marathas. Not the "Indians". At that point in history, "India" did
> not exist as a political entity. Only "Bharat" did, or "Hindustan", but that
> too, NOT as a political entity, but rather as a geographical one. Some may say,
> even as a loosely defined cultural entity. But certainly not a political one.
As India was not defined then, Shivaji was fighting for his own as defined
by his geo-political limitations. I guess he wasn't aware of the India of
1947. Hence, within his geo-political context he was a swadhinata
sangrami. Since democratic principles weren't established he was
not fighting for a nation as the Mahatma was but he was definitely
fighting for his people. Shivaji is immortalized in Maratha folklore as a
leader of the people. If he was merely a tyrant as Soumitra is claiming
that wouldn't have been possible. Shivaji was fighting for the Marathas
not for Bengalies or Punjabis because the latter weren't as yet defined by
the nation state of India as it exists now.
> Shivaji was a great warrior. No one can deny that. He fought and defeated the
> mighty Mughals many many times. For that, he has my respect. I respect him as
> a WARRIOR. For he WAS a great warrior. He was NOT, however, a benevolent leader
> who was trying to liberate "India" from the Mughals. Reason - India didnt
> really exist then. Another reason - anyone trying to liberate "India" would not
> resort to pillage and plundering other parts of "India".
It depends on perspective. By today's perspective a Maratha is just
another Indian like a Bengali. The period we are talking about such
feelings didn't exist and rulers didn't follow democratic principles.
Rulers had imperial ambitions. We have to understand Shivaji in the
context of Aurungzeb being the aggressor against his people. That he was
no saint is irrelevant coz the period we are talking about rulers were not
'bhadraloks' like us Bengalies (at least that is the impression we try to
give).
> Therefore, let me sum my argument up -
> Shivaji was a great warrior. He led the fight against the Mughals. To that
> extent, I respect him. I respect him as a man who rid Mughal India of who MIGHT
> have been one of the worst despots it has seen. However, in the course of his
> conquests, he was not a whole lot better. Not by any stretch of the truth.
Shivaji was a great liberator within his own geo-political limits as
Netaji was a great nationalist within his own socio-political limits and
if British rule is foreign so was Mughal rule. Most of the Maratha
conquests were in fact made after Shivaji. He was more busy keeping the
nascent Maratha kingdom together.
> -A.M.
Supratik
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
Supratik Das (d...@aecom.yu.edu) wrote:
: Shivaji was a great liberator within his own geo-political limits as
: Netaji was a great nationalist within his own socio-political limits and
: if British rule is foreign so was Mughal rule. Most of the Maratha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Das Moshai
Thanks for a good laugh.
Step 1: "If British rule was foreign"
Let us know whether it was or not.
Step 2: "so was Mughal rule"
How so and how did it depend on the foreignness of British rule? Mughals
became Indians and were Indian kings. The history of shivaji is best
understood as the rise of regional aspiration against central hegemony.
Who do you think symbolised India in 1857? A feeble old poet king called
Bahadur Shah Zafar-the last of the Mughals.
--
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
Abhijit Mitra
pra...@aol.com (Pran Lal) writes:
> There are also written records, which show that the mindset
> of Shivaji was hardly provincial or regional. One of his
> letters to Aurangzeb, the text of which can be easily found
> in any good history book, mentions to the atrocities commited
> by Aurangzeb on Hindus. In his entire letter, he focusses
> on the plight of Hindus, and never does he mention people
> of a specific region.
I was not aware of that. If true, then that is indeed commendable. However, his
actions against Hindus in WB and Orissa (as described by Soumitra Ji) seem
contradictory to this. Could it be that his letter to Aurangzeb focussing on
the plight of Hindus was merely his political facade, that he was merely out to
conquer, and he wanted to do so in the political guise of a "Hindu" liberator
of sorts? By doing so, he would provide much needed legitimacy to his rule in
non-Maratha areas, atleast among the people.
In a non-related vein, is it possible that in modern India, the BJP is out to
do the same? I know this is not a part of this thread, but I couldn't resist
saying that.
>The prince, on seeing her, immediately
>responded: I wish that my mother was as beautiful
>as you are. If that had been so, I would have had been
>better looking. Needless to say, the woman was released
Thats like the policeman who pulls over a good looking woman and then lets her
go because shes hot. That has more to do with hormones than any sense of
justice. Okay, I grant that the analogy is not perfect because traffic
violations are a crime whereas being a Muslim lady is not, but you get the
point.
I'm curious, was he ever married ?
-A.M.
Pran Lal
Abhijit Mitra wrote:
>pra...@aol.com (Pran Lal) writes:
>
>> There are also written records, which show that the mindset
>> of Shivaji was hardly provincial or regional. One of his
>> letters to Aurangzeb, the text of which can be easily found
>> in any good history book, mentions to the atrocities commited
>> by Aurangzeb on Hindus. In his entire letter, he focusses
>> on the plight of Hindus, and never does he mention people
>> of a specific region.
>I was not aware of that. If true, then that is indeed commendable.
However,
>his
>actions against Hindus in WB and Orissa (as described by Soumitra Ji)
seem
>contradictory to this. Could it be that his letter to Aurangzeb focussing
on
>the plight of Hindus was merely his political facade, that he was merely
out
>to
>conquer, and he wanted to do so in the political guise of a "Hindu"
liberator
Soumitra_ji did not point out that Maratha rule was over
a large period ot time, and Shivaji, as far as I remember
did not rule over Bengal. Correct me on that one, since
I am not sure of that. Hence your confusion.
About your ponderings, I have no comment. All I know
is that Shivaji did write this letter to Alamgir, and asked
him to follow the footsteps of Akbar and abolish Jaziya.
He does that on the behalf of Hindus and not Marathis.
I have no basis to argue that this letter was a mere "facade".
Arguments like these must be based on solid foundations.
And in absence of that I will think that this great hero of
mine did write in 100% earnestness.
>In a non-related vein, is it possible that in modern India, the BJP is
out to
>do the same? I know this is not a part of this thread, but I couldn't
resist
>saying that.
The answer to your question is: I do not know. All we can
do is, make intelligent guesses. There is a whole spectrum of
BJP folks. The central leadership, if I understand them
correctly, is quite upright and honest. People like
Advani, Vajpayee, Joshi are quite clear about the format
of their agendas, and these agendas are quite explicit.
But then there are a buch of second rung leaders, who are
not as honest as these folks. There are a variety of reasons
for that. Can BJP ensure that the command of its ranks will
be in the hands of honest people in the future? I hope so.
But then there are no guarantees for that. In fact, that is
the challenge that you, and I, BJP_ites, and non_BJP_ites
face.
>>The prince, on seeing her, immediately
>>responded: I wish that my mother was as beautiful
>>as you are. If that had been so, I would have had been
>>better looking. Needless to say, the woman was released
>
>Thats like the policeman who pulls over a good looking woman and then
lets
>her
>go because shes hot. That has more to do with hormones than any sense of
>justice. Okay, I grant that the analogy is not perfect because traffic
>violations are a crime whereas being a Muslim lady is not, but you get
the
>point.
No Sir. The policeman of present India, shamelessly enuff,
would do quite the opposite. Chivalry, and respect for
women, both Hindu and non_Hindu, was one thing that
the Rajputs of Mewar and Shivaji excelled in. Once again,
you can find the details in any good history book.
>I'm curious, was he ever married ?
Yes.
nachiketa
sayan bhattacharyya
Supratik Das <d...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>
>'Mughals became Indian and became Indian Kings'. Lets analyze this
>question.
>
>What is the criteria of Indianess? Akbar married Hindu Rajput princess
>but he was of Turko-Mongol descent. Does that make him Indian? Job
>Charnock married a Hindu woman whom he saved from Sati. Is that criteria
>for being Indian?
I have no hesitation in calling someone an Indian if (s)he identifies
with India. For this reason, I would not hesitate to call David Hare,
or Anthony Firinghee, or Henry Louis Vivian Derozio, as Indians. For the
same reason, I would not hesitate to call the later Mughals as Indians.
As someone pointed out in this thread, Bahadur Shah Zafar even wrote
poems about India. No Mughal emperor subsequent to Humayun ever set foot
outside India.
>The Mughals on the other hand remained petty outside India. In fact in a
>short time they lost control over Uzbek territories from where they arose.
>If Uzbekistan had been a strong country would we still call India under
>Mughal rule or a colony of Uzbekistan (I am using the post-Soviet term).
It would have depended on whether India was being ruled from Uzbekistan
or not, and on where the identification of the rulers lay.
>What are the criteria for the Mughals being Indianized and Mughal rule
>being Indian rule? Since you are proposing the hypothesis allow me to
>let you table the points so that I may demolish them one by one.
Hindustani classical music, an Indian art form, flourished under the
Mughals. The musicians patronized by the Mughal kings were Indians
like Tansen, not foreigners like Uzbekis or Turks. The same is true of
literature (e.g. Ghalib, a poet favored by the Mughal court, was an Indian,
not a foreigner). And so in art. Etc. etc.
If the Mughals "remained foreigners" as you suggest, it would have made sense
for them to hire musicians and artists from Turkey or Uzbekistan, no? Why
do you think they patronized Indian artists and musicians ?
Supratik Das
On 23 Aug 1997, Abhijit Mitra wrote:
> >As India was not defined then, Shivaji was fighting for his own as defined
> >by his geo-political limitations.
> Exactly. And he had a great deal of success in the same. This means that he was
> a great warrior and all that jazz, but he was by no means an "Indian" freedom
> fighter, he was merely a Marathi one. Therefore, I respect him as a warrior who
> dared stand up against the mighty Mughals, I respect him for his courage and
> his valour. However, my point is merely this - his struggle was not for Tamil
> Nadu or West Bengal or Manipur. It was for his immediate surrounding areas.
> Bear in mind, this is no way affects the respect I have for him. It merely
> means the respect I have for him is of a very different nature than that I have
> for Sardar Patel or Netaji or even Gandhi. Not more, not less. Just different.
You are contradicting whatever you said in the first half with what you
say in the second one. A baby when he is born thinks his mother to be his
own and the rest all foreign. When he is a toddler it is his mother and
brother and father and ayah the rest is foreign. When he is older add his
friends, then his schoolmates then his lover, then wife then children,
etc. In other words the period we are talking about there was no vision of
India as it stands today. So we cannot blame Shivaji for not fighting for
Bengal. This concept came only after Mahatma Gandhi. We should praise the
Mahatma for it but we cannot hang Shivaji for it. The nationhood of India
didn't occur overnight. Like all other processes it was a continously
developing one. Secondly, nmothing called Bengal existed then. What we are
calling Bengal was a vague geo-political entity divided between many
rulers. So it was not a Maharashtra vs Bengal or vs Orissa fight.
> >I guess he wasn't aware of the India of
> >1947.
> You GUESS?
Well I could have told you better had I interviewed him then. I could have
asked him of what he thought about the nation state of India. You didn't
catch the irony in my earlier statement.
> >Shivaji was fighting for the Marathas
> >not for Bengalies or Punjabis because the latter weren't as yet defined by
> >the nation state of India as it exists now.
> Exactly. Which means he is worthy of much respect, for his skillz as a great
> warrior and his struggle against what is probably the mightiest empire "India"
> has ever seen. It should be noted, however, that he is on a totally different
> level, not comparable at all, to the "freedom fighters" like Patel, Netaji or
> Bhagat Singh. Again, this 'level' is not higher or lower or better or worse,
> just different.
Absolutely, I agree. We cannot compare different periods in that matter.
The concept of freedom in these periods are different. By the criteria of
his period Shivaji was a freedom fighter.
> >The period we are talking about such
> >feelings didn't exist and rulers didn't follow democratic principles.
> Exactly. Now, in the same way, tell me this -
> If Shivajis lack of tact with non-Marathis (as described by Nalinaksha in one
> of his posts in this thread) can be forgiven because of the period in which he
> lived and the common practices of his era, then in the same vein, why can we
> not 'forgive' Aurangzebs anti-Hindu actions, since they can also be shown to
> have been an accepted part of that period and since rulers in those days didn't
> follow democratic principles anyways?
Shivaji actually had a number of non-Marathis in his forces including
Muslims. Let me take this somewhere else. Siraj was a tyrant that too to
his own people, yet we still praise him as a leader who fought the
British. Why? Mao was one of the worst butcher of his country, yet he is
worshipped as their greatest leader. Why? There is nothing black and
white, bad or good in absolute terms. It is only the perspective which is
different. Depends on which side you look from. If you look from Shivajis
side he is fighting for his people i.e. Marathas not Bengalies, hence he
is right and he is good. If you are looking from Aurungzeb's side Shivaji
is a puny bandit trying to wreck your empire which you have imposed on an
entire race. To the British Netaji was a fascist bully out to destroy the
just empire, to the Indians he is a nationalist, a hero. Unfortunately,
the Marxists, because they are inherently anti-nationalistic, look from
Aurungzeb's side. Then of course Shivaji was a thug.
> My point is this - we judge history based on our understanding of right and
> wrong. Look at it from that point of view and you will see a totally different
> picture. You will see a bigot Aurangzeb who was rabidly anti-Hindu for the most
> part, but also mysteriously patronized Hindus at times, and you will find a
> valiant Shivaji who liberated HIS own people and plundered others.
I have deliberately kept the Hindu-Muslim perspective out of it. That is a
Marxist trap and is best avoided. Marxists and Nehruvites make a lot out
of Muslim rulers patronizing Hindus. Let me demolish this myth in one
stroke. Some of the worst perpretators of torture on Indians during the
freedom struggle were Indians who worked for the British. There were
countless informers who were Indians, who formed the backbone of the
British governance of India. The Bengalies were the penpushers for the
British. What does that prove? That the British were
benevolent towards the Bengalies/Indians. There were blacks who were on
the side of the whites during the apartheid struggle. Does it prove that
the whites were benevolent towards the blacks? The Muslim rulers were
ruling a country whose vast majority were not Muslims. Like any other
colonial power they needed to patronize at least a few non-Muslims and
institutions. That they did. Doesn't mean that they were benevolent to the
non-Muslims. It was necessary to RULE. Aurungzeb realized in the latter
stages of his rule that his fanaticism would ruin his Empire because the
majority were non-Muslims. He realized that and tried to correct his past
mistakes not because he was repentant but because he knew that with so
many non-Muslim and Muslim revolts around him he couldn't survive by being
a fanatic as well. It is like the Congress govt. giving doles to the
Kashmiris to keep their revolt down, a revolt which happened precisely
because of Congress thuggery. Aurungzeb, of course wasn't aware that
species called Marxist and Nehruvites would emerge to worship him. I am
sure the smart guy that he was he would have a medalled a few Hindu
forefathers of present day Marxists.
> -A.M.
I am enjoying discussing with you. I was tired of the
Marxist/Post-modernist/whatever bullshit currently prevalent on
soc.cult.bengali.
Supratik
Supratik Das
On 20 Aug 1997, Abhijit Mitra wrote:
> Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
> >How come I only hear the praise and eulogy of Shivaji from a
> >MAharashtrian or a BJP only??????? That is a question I failed to get
> >answer.
> That's a very good question. Fact is, Shivajis' fight was for Marathwada. This
> implies a certain exclusivism which is totally uncalled for in modern India.
> The reason the BJP and their allies (especially the Shiv Sena, which happens to
> be named after Chattrapati Shivaji) adore the man is because he is percived to
> have led the fight against Aurangzeb and we all know why the BJP doesn't like
> Aurangzeb. Hint: his religion.
I am assuming that Soumitra and the Maoists have done a proper sampling of
all groups who do and do not eulogize Shivaji. I don't think that the BJP
or Marathis have any problem with Shivaji's religion. It is the
Marxist/Maoists who have. Now you see where the problem is.
> -A.M.
Supratik
Abhijit Mitra
Death to Communism
pchatto...@ies-energy.com
In article <5tqfne$5bs$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu
says...
You need to look into the descent of Tansen, Mirza Ghalib they might have
Turkish/Afghan/Persian/Mesopotamian/Egyptian blood - it's not that easy
to be an Indian a-la-Supratik.
>
>If the Mughals "remained foreigners" as you suggest, it would have made sense
>for them to hire musicians and artists from Turkey or Uzbekistan, no? Why
>do you think they patronized Indian artists and musicians ?
You never know for sure - just because Babur lost his inherited kingdom,
otherwise the Mughals would have built palaces in their countries of origin
by the wealth looted from India or would have destroyed Indian artisanship
to sell UZbeg handicrafts in Indian market. Babur the poor guy lost his
inheritance otherwise you never know.
Apology for the quips!
Partha
Abhijit Mitra
Ok, that previous response was uncalled for.
I believe one major reason communists hate Shivaji is also due to his religion.
Communists are anti-Hindu. It would not be an exaggeration if said that they
are the enemies of all God-fearing Hindus. The only thing, as said by Mr. Das,
between communism and total dominion, is the Hindu faith. The same Hindu faith
that first survived so many assaults, such as the invasion of Islam, then the
influence of Christianity, and so forth. The latest assault on the Hindu system
of beliefs has shown up in the form of the Communists. But if history is any
indicator at all, then Hinduism will triumph over these forces. Bengal was
the epicentre of Hindu revivalism in the past, and even though the spirit of
Hindutwa is being choked out of Bengal, it will come back. If the people of
Bengal can not do it, then outsiders will do it for them. It is inevitable.
The only way the CPI(M) will survive in WB is by embracing religion. Proof of
this is found in the latest actions of Mamata Banerjee, who is probably the
most popular politican in WB today, even surpassing Juto Basu. She appeared
on Rajat Sharmas TV program, "Janata ki Adalat" lately, and praised the BJP.
She even said that the BJP is not communal. Not only that, she expressed a
desire to be expelled from the Congress(I). Rumors are that she plans to join
the BJP. The most popular politician in West Bengal, praising the BJP! What
does this mean, coming from the only leader in WB with anything remotely
resembling a mass base of support? This means that the CPIM better watch it's
step now. Hindutwa is coming back. And its coming back with a vengeance.
-A.M.
ps. for all you sceptics out there, I will now post the news article describing
Mamata Banerjees actions.
sig...@hotmail.com
Mr Mitra wrote:
>
> Death to Communism
It is dead, in most parts of the world.
In India too, communism, more specifically, marxism, is
more or less dead as an economic thought. (Proof: no self-
conscious marxist today holds forth on surplus-value-is-
stolen-labour-blah-blah theories. He knows he's up for
ridicule) It's in the socio-political arena that it still
raves and rants on.
But, that's owing to its establishing itself well-enough
in the country's prestigious institutions and parts of the
media. Yet it's no longer a dynamic, growing "movement" and
I speculate that it will take at most one more generation
before marxism, in India too, is reduced to the same state
as in the West.
The fact is: It ceased to be the oh-so-romantic and glamourous
thingy it once was. No more intelligent converts to the faith.
Even breeding grounds of the tribe like JNU are cutting a
sorry figure. I've read angst pieces by profs of the exalted
institution lamenting the younger generation's lack of commitment
to the 'socialist project'.
Marxism thrived once upon a time because of its SNOB VALUE.
That's the secret to its attracting, fifties-through-seventies,
many bright young people [well, not so bright :-) ]. This
phoren brand-name was the fashion of those days, and the
choice purchase of the intellectually inclined consumer
[in the market place of ideologies :-)) ]
The ticket to intellectualdom came easy: perusing a few leaves
of Das Kapital or the Manifesto sufficed. And if you
had mastered the jargon - "petit bourgeios" et al - you
were awarded an A+. [ Ah, the jargon. So esoteric. So technical.
It gave a sense of power, your primary defence mechanism against
ideological opponents. Throw it at them and watch the spectacle
unfold. Not for the faint-hearted to incur the wrath of
the Marxist! ]
What destroyed this idyllic picture? Well, of course, as Shourie
says, the Practical Manifestation of the Grand Theory, that
paradise on earth, came down crashing with a deafening thud.
And Tiananmen Square left the left-wing student bodies with egg
on their face - after all, most commies were born on campus. But
signs of Marxism's waning appeal were there even before. The sheen
has worn off. It's the urge for an ideological anchoring,
common among all thinking people in early stages of intellectual
development, was what in the first place led some really
thinking peole to embrace this false philosophy, simply
because it happened to be the dominant one of their time.
(Who's credited with the quote: "if at 20 you're not a communist
there's something wrong with you; if at 40 you're still a communist
there's something more seriously wrong with you"?) Many of
these people are no longer marxists, and horror! some have
turned proponents of Hindutva.
That kinda sums up the situation. Have you noticed, that
Indian marxists - I mean the thinktanks and the policy formulators
- are slowly, albeit reluctantly but definitely
veering around to accepting the theory that caste is synonymous
with class? That would have been apostasy a few years ago,
but now they know they can longer rely on a steady supply
of intellectual elite (who earlier on mostly hailed from
well-heeled "upper caste" homes) to lead the "movement".
You have to admit to the club new members even if their
knowledge of, and commitment to, the Cause and its Theory
are suspect. I believe this gamble won't pay off, that
marxism, both in intellectual and political cricles, will
continue to decline in years to come.
Sikhivahan
Abhijit Mitra
pra...@aol.com (Pran Lal) writes:
>And in absence of that I will think that this great hero of
>mine did write in 100% earnestness.
I guess he did. However, how this earnestness is compatible with his documented
plundering and pillaging in other Hindu ilakas, I do not understand.
>The central leadership, if I understand them correctly, is quite upright and
>honest.
If not upright and honest, they are definitely better leaders than the central
leadership of other parties. They are, in general, more sophisticated and more
urbane. Vajpayee would make a great Prime Minister.
> But then there are a buch of second rung leaders, who are
>not as honest as these folks.
And not only that, their commitment to Hindutwa is tempered with a totally
unacceptable tinge of intolerance and bigotry. This is something the upper
echelons of the BJP do not share, most of them are, in general, secular minded
leaders with a grandiose vision of a great Bharat.
-A.M.
Abhijit Mitra
Supratik Das <d...@aecom.yu.edu> writes:
>So we cannot blame Shivaji for not fighting for
>Bengal.
I am not blaming him for it. I am merely saying he did not, since, as you said,
the "nationhood of India didnt occur overnight". Therefore, I am placing
Shivaji at a very different level than I place Gandhi or Patel, not because he
was any better or any worse, but because he was different.
>By the criteria of his period Shivaji was a freedom fighter.
Exactly.. by the criteria of his period.
>Mao was one of the worst butcher of his country, yet he is
>worshipped as their greatest leader. Why?
It's a little thing called communist indoctrination. Do not underestimate the
hunger for power that is so much a part of communism, which compels them to
brainwash people into believing what they want them to believe. When, one fine
day, the Chinese people overthrow communism, Mao will no longer be worshipped,
and he will be recognized for the tyrant that he was.
>There is nothing black and
>white, bad or good in absolute terms.
Absolute goodness is when no matter how you look at it, the person or the
phenomenon, is good. I do believe in the existence of absolute goodness.
However, I do recognise that most people are neither absolutely good, nor
absolutely evil. Most people fall in the middle. That's just human nature, very
few people are capable of being good all the time and very few people are capable of being bad all the time. That is probably the biggest failing in human
nature. Therefore, the ambiguity, since these people we judge, are all human.
>To the British Netaji was a fascist bully out to destroy the
>just empire, to the Indians he is a nationalist, a hero.
Netaji was a great hero, however, he made a big mistake when he seeked
alliances with the fascist powers like Germany and Japan. Therefore, the view
held by many (many Indians too) that he was a fascist.
>I have deliberately kept the Hindu-Muslim perspective out of it.
You can't do that. Religion is such a big part of life for most Indians (hindu
or muslim or sikh or isai) lives that simply ignoring that perspective is
misleading.
>sure the smart guy that he was he would have a medalled a few Hindu
>forefathers of present day Marxists.
Well, yes. However, I don't believe Nehruvites and Marxists will last. Their
days are numbered and they know it.
However, getting back to the topic at hand, I believe your point was that any
concessions made by Aurangzeb to Hindus were purely political, with a selfish
motive behind it. You may be right, but then again, I just hope you realise
that you may not be right. It IS possible that some of the concessions
Aurangzeb made to the Hindus were out of some form of benevolence? Maybe he
personally was acquainted with some purohit and so he gave his mandir some
money? My point is, we don't know, so why not give the man the benefit of the
doubt? His atrocities against Hindus are well-documented, we know that. Let's
not strip him of the little 'patronising' that he may have done. Let's not
strip him of his humanity.
>I was tired of the Marxist/Post-modernist/whatever bullshit currently
>prevalent on soc.cult.bengali.
I know how you feel.
-A.M.
Abhijit Mitra
jit <j...@unforgettable.com> writes:
>To peddle Aurangzeb's pragmatism as the proof of his secular credential is
>only possible in Marxist world
While I would not call Aurangzeb 'secular', I certainly think it's wrong to
just dismiss any action by Aurangzeb that was pro-Hindu as 'expedient'. By
doing so, you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse the Marxists of doing -
of trying to 'revise' history to suit your agenda, whatever that may be. Is it
not possible that Aurangzeb, when in his better moods, patronised Hindus? After
all, he IS human and humans go through mood changes. Maybe he did so for some
other reason. My point is, simply because he is widely seen to be anti-Hindu,
what right have we to attribute his few good deeds to political expediency?
What I see here is one party that wants to make a God out of Aurangzeb by
telling us about is 'secular' credentials and pretending they're in any way
indicative of the whole truth, and another that wants to completely demonize
him, as if he were some sort of Devil. His anti-Hindu stance aside, isn't it
POSSIBLE he may have had some 'nice' moments?
-A.M.
Supratik Das
On 24 Aug 1997 pchatto...@ies-energy.com wrote:
> >Hindustani classical music, an Indian art form, flourished under the
> >Mughals. The musicians patronized by the Mughal kings were Indians
> >like Tansen, not foreigners like Uzbekis or Turks. The same is true of
> >literature (e.g. Ghalib, a poet favored by the Mughal court, was an Indian,
> >not a foreigner). And so in art. Etc. etc.
> You need to look into the descent of Tansen, Mirza Ghalib they might have
> Turkish/Afghan/Persian/Mesopotamian/Egyptian blood - it's not that easy
> to be an Indian a-la-Supratik.
We are talking about Mughal Empire not of Muslims. Partha your old Marxist
trick of making this a Hindu-Muslim affair wouldn't work. Try something
else.
> >If the Mughals "remained foreigners" as you suggest, it would have made sense
> >for them to hire musicians and artists from Turkey or Uzbekistan, no? Why
> >do you think they patronized Indian artists and musicians ?
> You never know for sure - just because Babur lost his inherited kingdom,
> otherwise the Mughals would have built palaces in their countries of origin
> by the wealth looted from India or would have destroyed Indian artisanship
> to sell UZbeg handicrafts in Indian market. Babur the poor guy lost his
> inheritance otherwise you never know.
Mahmud of Ghazni in fact did that with the looted wealth. There is no
reason to believe that Babur wouldn't have done that given the
oppurtunity. Have the Marxist theoreticians done any research on how the
Turkish and Mughal invasions affected the local artisans and the local
economy. I would like to see that.
> Apology for the quips!
Partha you'll have to be smarter than that and do better than that to take
me on.
I FEEL LIKE ABHIMANYU FIGHTING THE KAURAVAS (COMMUNISTS) ATTACKING FROM
ALL SIDES.
C'mon guys you should do better than this. C'mon take me on. I do have
some free time coz my Boss is away.
> Partha
Supratik
sayan bhattacharyya
Supratik Das <d...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>I will accept the fact that Bahadur Shah Zafar was Indianized. What I am
>saying is that the Mughal Empire was not Indian, at least not upon
>inception. It was a foreign empire which got Indianized.
Agreed. Similarly,
(1) The Aryans were not Indians either, at least not when they
first arrived in India. But they got Indianized.
(2) My family was not Bengali, at least when they arrived in Bengal
600-700 years ago from North India. But they became Bengali-ized.
(3) The Parsees were not Indian when they arrived in India from
(guess what) Persia some 1400 years ago. But they got Indianized.
The point is, once you start living in country X, you get X-ized
within a few generations pretty easily.
Raghu Seshadri
A.M writes -
> Netaji was a great hero, however, he made a big mistake when he seeked
> alliances with the fascist powers like Germany and Japan. Therefore, the view
> held by many (many Indians too) that he was a fascist.
As far as I know, only communists called Netaji
a fascist. But these characters would abuse
their own mothers if Stalin ordered them to do so,
so we need not wonder about their standards.
Netaji did whatever seemed advantageous to
Indian freedom to him, given the limited info
in those colonial times. It is not right to
judge from the wisdom of hindsight alone.
He was a patriot, his heart was pure, he was
fearless and unselfish and indefatigable,
he loved India like a typical Indian boy
loves his mother, he could inspire millions by
his charisma and character. These are the qualities
we should be focussing on.
RS
jit
In the 70s naxalites used to attach lebels like "reactionaries",
"counter-revolutionaries", "buerguious" (sp?), etc on anybody
who differed with their views. They used such tactic to
dehumanize those who they didn't like including poor police
constables or professors or anybody else. Then they attacked
and killed such hapless people. This is a common Maoist/Stalinist
tactic. Extremists of any kind, be it political or religious
is against humanity. That is why communists denounced M. N. Roy
when he got disillusioned with them and decided to declare
himself a Humanist.
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: As far as I know, only communists called Netaji
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: a fascist. But these characters would abuse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also Nehru expressed the same opinion about Netaji. He of course quickly
forgot about it while defending the INA officers and getting milege from
the publicity.
In Tripuri congress, Govind Ballabh Pant shouted slogans in praise of
Gandhi saying "Hindustan ki Hitler ki jai".
--
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
Supratik Das
On 25 Aug 1997, Abhijit Mitra wrote:
> jit <j...@unforgettable.com> writes:
> >To peddle Aurangzeb's pragmatism as the proof of his secular credential is
> >only possible in Marxist world
> While I would not call Aurangzeb 'secular', I certainly think it's wrong to
> just dismiss any action by Aurangzeb that was pro-Hindu as 'expedient'. By
> doing so, you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse the Marxists of doing -
> of trying to 'revise' history to suit your agenda, whatever that may be. Is it
> not possible that Aurangzeb, when in his better moods, patronised Hindus? After
> all, he IS human and humans go through mood changes. Maybe he did so for some
> other reason. My point is, simply because he is widely seen to be anti-Hindu,
> what right have we to attribute his few good deeds to political expediency?
Aurungzeb held one of the largest empires in India. I would hate to think
he suffered from mood vacillations. Remember the shrewd and cruel way he
disposed off his brothers and took control of a huge Empire. He was no
Tughlak, a crazy despot. Aurungzeb mixed his hatred of Kafirs with his
intention of holding his empire together. Thus, he used the carrot and
stick policy that most emperors use. This does not make Aurungzeb a
villian. What makes him a villian is his hatred of Hindus which was
reflected in his actions? In that it was no different from Hitler's hatred
of Jews.
> What I see here is one party that wants to make a God out of Aurangzeb by
> telling us about is 'secular' credentials and pretending they're in any way
> indicative of the whole truth, and another that wants to completely demonize
> him, as if he were some sort of Devil. His anti-Hindu stance aside, isn't it
> POSSIBLE he may have had some 'nice' moments?
Aurungzeb was a learned Islamic scholar. It was possible that he took some
off the prescriptions for Kafirs in the Quran quite literally. In fact it
is said he strongly disapproved Dara Shikoh's experimentation with
Hinduism and mysticism as un-Islamic behaviour. One of his first actions
was to Islamicize the state set up as he felt his predecessors were
running it in an un-Islamic fashion. Hence, his efforts to revive the
Jeziya which is prescribed in the Quran for all non-Muslims. Aurungzeb was
also a very disciplined person. He was reputed to have given up alchohol
and womanising.
The point is these morons could have used Dara Shikoh as a Hero but they
never do that because to orthodox Muslims Dara is unacceptable and a
Kaffir. They always have to hang by Aurunzeb's langoti.
> -A.M.
Supratik
pchatto...@ies-energy.com
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.970825165502.15354A-100000@post>, Supratik says...
>
>
>
>On 24 Aug 1997 pchatto...@ies-energy.com wrote:
>
>> >Hindustani classical music, an Indian art form, flourished under the
>> >Mughals. The musicians patronized by the Mughal kings were Indians
>> >like Tansen, not foreigners like Uzbekis or Turks. The same is true of
>> >literature (e.g. Ghalib, a poet favored by the Mughal court, was an Indian,
>> >not a foreigner). And so in art. Etc. etc.
>
>> You need to look into the descent of Tansen, Mirza Ghalib they might have
>> Turkish/Afghan/Persian/Mesopotamian/Egyptian blood - it's not that easy
>> to be an Indian a-la-Supratik.
>
>
>We are talking about Mughal Empire not of Muslims. Partha your old Marxist
>trick of making this a Hindu-Muslim affair wouldn't work. Try something
>else.
I never brought in Hindu-Muslims. I was talking about descent and only trying
to extend your logic and find out where does it lead.
Where did you find a Marxist trick in my post? FYI, I'm not a Marxist or a
communist - what I do not like is irrationality of any kind. On this same
thread you have posted elsewhere that Mirza Ghalib did write in a foreign
language - since when Urdu has become a foreign language. Are there any
countries besides India and Pakistan with people speaking in Urdu and in
Pakistan true they have migrated after the partition.
You are trying to be clever by posting your different gems in different posts.
In the other post I am mentioning, you very well did do a gradation
of Indianness for Tansen and Mirza Ghalib. I do not have a problem in that,
but if you do that you should allow others to grade your Indianness too.
I think the problem with you guys is that you cannot take a fact as a fact
and try to exorcise any issue into a Hindu-Muslim issue.
>
>>>If the Mughals "remained foreigners" as you suggest, it would have made sense
>> >for them to hire musicians and artists from Turkey or Uzbekistan, no? Why
>> >do you think they patronized Indian artists and musicians ?
>
>> You never know for sure - just because Babur lost his inherited kingdom,
>> otherwise the Mughals would have built palaces in their countries of origin
>> by the wealth looted from India or would have destroyed Indian artisanship
>> to sell UZbeg handicrafts in Indian market. Babur the poor guy lost his
>> inheritance otherwise you never know.
>
>
>Mahmud of Ghazni in fact did that with the looted wealth. There is no
>reason to believe that Babur wouldn't have done that given the
>oppurtunity.
You should look into history texts of your high school. It is a well known
fact that the nobility in Ibrahim Lodhi's court and the Rajput kings (led
by Rana Sanga) really expected that to happen. They invited Babur to attack
India and expected that he would leave after looting like Mahmood but
that didn't happen. Babur had the opportunity to loot and leave but he
didn't do that. You can find out real sinister motives for that, but,
what you have written in your post is not correct.
Have the Marxist theoreticians done any research on how the
>Turkish and Mughal invasions affected the local artisans and the local
>economy. I would like to see that.
Really! Are you prepared for some serious info? That's interesting, could
you pass me your list of historians you are allergic to, so that, I can try to
find something which won't have any adverse reaction on you.
>
>
>
>> Apology for the quips!
>
>Partha you'll have to be smarter than that and do better than that to take
>me on.
>
>I FEEL LIKE ABHIMANYU FIGHTING THE KAURAVAS (COMMUNISTS) ATTACKING FROM
>ALL SIDES.
>
>C'mon guys you should do better than this. C'mon take me on. I do have
>some free time coz my Boss is away.
This reminds me "LaRai Kshyaapa" of Sukumar Ray-
"Shat German Jagai aaka tobuo Jagai laRey..."
Or should I take the liberty to twist Rabindranath a little-
" 'Boka' Kumbho rakhsha karey nakol BNudigaRh"
>
>> Partha
>
>Supratik
Badh haoar agey Boss phirbey nato?
Partha
sub...@learningtree.com
In article <340220...@unforgettable.com>,
jit <j...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
.. deleted ..
> In the 70s naxalites used to attach lebels like "reactionaries",
> "counter-revolutionaries", "buerguious" (sp?), etc on anybody
> who differed with their views. They used such tactic to
> dehumanize those who they didn't like including poor police
> constables or professors or anybody else. Then they attacked
> and killed such hapless people. This is a common Maoist/Stalinist
> tactic. Extremists of any kind, be it political or religious
> is against humanity. That is why communists denounced M. N. Roy
> when he got disillusioned with them and decided to declare
> himself a Humanist.
In the '47s and onwards till today, the only to kill a non-Hindu is to
first call him (or her) a 'Muslim' and then kill the person. Being
previously (slightly) involved in these hideous matters we can say this
with confidence that it is impossible to convince even a goonda to kill
an unknown person unless one effectively demonizes the 'enemy'. Please do
not try to point the finger at Communists, Maoists, Stalinsts, Nazis and
all other ists and ims. Subir De.
ss...@lehigh.edu
>>On 23 Aug 1997 ss...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>>
>>> throughout his empire. If "religion does not enter the equation at all" as
>>> Sayan claims or if the uprisings were "the rise of regional aspiration
>>> against central hegemony" it is illogical that all the major uprisings agai
nst
>>> Aurangzeb (Jats, Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs, the Shia Sultans of Bijapur)
>>> were led by Hindus or Shia Muslims and not Sunni Muslims.
>
>It would be illogical only if there were regional Sunni Muslim powers who
>did NOT rebel against Aurangzeb but only the Shias and Hindus did. Were
>there such Sunni Muslim regional powers existent at that time?
Sayan,
Apart from the Rajputs, who were always a warrior race the rest (Jats, Sikhs,
Bundelas, Satnamis, Marathas, etc) were peaceful people before the reign of
Aurangzeb. By no stretch of imagination were they regional powers. Aurungzeb's
religious bigotry forced them to take up arms. The Rajputs had made their
peace with the Mughals since the time of Akbar, they only took up arms because
Aurangzebs intolerence towards Hindus were an insult to them.
An overwhelming number of Aurungzeb's generals were Sunni Muslims. They had
conquered regions which were far away from Delhi and they helped Aurungzeb
govern them. Most of them were shrewd military commanders, ruthless and very
ambitious. Isn't it a little strange that when even Hindu peasants in regions
close to Delhi were rising in rebellion (please see below) these generals never
rose in revolt? The only plausible explanation is that they did not rise in
revolt because they could identify with Aurangzeb's religious policies and did
not feel alienated.
I am also citing a few paragraphs from "An advanced history of India" by R.C.
Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury and K.Datta to support the theory that the wars
which Aurangzeb fought had a very strong religious undercurrent.
In page 497 the authors describe the various uprisings as "reactions against
aurangzeb's policies"
Case of the Jats and Bundelas
"The first serious outbreak of anti-imperial reaction took place among the
Jats of Mathura district, where the imperial faujdar Abdun-Nabi oppressed them
greatly. In 1669 the sturdy Jat peasantry (see the Jats were peasants, they
were not regional powers) rose under a leader, Gokla, zamindar of Tilpat,
killed the faujdar, and kept the whole district in disorder for a year, till
they were suppressed by a strong imperial force under Hasan Ali Khan, the new
faujdar of Muttra. Gokla was put to death and the members of his family
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
converted to Islam"(if the disturbances were only political in nature, why
would the members of Gokla's family be converted to Islam. The Jats rose again
and fought the Mughals. How can a struggle also not have strong religious
overtones when Gokla's family was forced to convert?)
In Pg 498 the authors mention "The discontent of the Hindu population of
Bundelkhand and Malwa gave Chhatrasal (the Bundela leader) to stand forth as
the champion of his faith and Bundela liberty by 1671. He gained several
victories over the Mughals, and succeeded in carving out an independant
principality for himself in eastern Malwa with its capital at Panna, before
his death in 1731".
Case of the Sikhs
The Sikhs became militant because of the treatment handed to their 9th guru,
Guru TeghBahadur by Aurangzeb. In Pg 500 the authors write that Tegh Bahadur
"was drawn into hostilities with the imperial government. He protested against
certain measures of the Emperor and encouraged the Brahmanas of Kashmir to
resist these. This was too much for Aurangzeb to tolerate. He caused the Sikh
divine to be arrested and brought over to Delhi, where he was given the choice
between death and conversion. Teg Bahadur preferred his faith to his life and
was executed after 5 days (A.D. 1675). The martyrdom of the Guru inspired the
Sikhs with feelings of revenge against the Mughal empire and made an open war
inevitable". Guru Govind Singh organised the Sikhs into a militant unit and
the Mughal-Sikh wars continued for a long time.
I am not going into the details of Aurangzeb's wars with the Marathas, The
Rajputs and the Shias in the Deccan because it will involve a lot of typing.
The interested reader can look up the mentioned reference (Pg 501 onwards...).
The pages adequately prove that all of aurangzebs's wars were caused by his
intolerance towards non-Sunni Muslims. I cannot also imagine how it was
possible for any war to remain secular when one of the parties was forcibly
converting his captured enemies to Islam or executing them if they did not
convert!
Thanks,
Sambit.
----------------------------------------------------!---------------------------
Sambit K. Saha, Ph.D !
Display Research Laboratory !Apt 202, 411 Webster Str
Sherman Fairchild Center for Solid State Studies !Bethlehem, PA 18015.
Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science !
Lehigh University !Phone:(610)758-9879
Soumitra Bose
Pran Lal wrote:
>
> Soumitra babu wrote:
>
> >Wasn't Shivaji known as the "founder" of the Maratha rule and didn't the
> >same dynasty take Shivaji's ideology of conquering new territories and
> >pluindering them ?????
> >
>
> That is an absurd logic betaa Soumitra. Firstly, the Marathas
> were not by lineage to Shivaji clan. For all we know, most
> of the Maratha rulers were Brahmins by caste. Shivaji was
> a Thakur rather.
\
Wasn;t shivaji's moto was Go Brahman Raksha???? Didn't the later Maratha
rulers swore by Shivaji's rule ??????
By the way please do not call me Betaa Soumitra or whatever . IF you do
not know bangla or anyother Indian language , there is no point in using
Hindi . We have seen I know your language no less than yours and you do
not know that of mine ,and you are not ashamed , which you should have
been , since on top the group's name is glittering as
soc.culture.bengali . I do not and would not write in a group where I do
not know anything , much less than language . You do , and you are not
ashamed of your no-home-work and no perseverence . You have the full
right of being a shameless person . Please do not push me with those
behaviours .
>
> Also, even if they belonged to the same lineage, even then
> you cannot transfer sins from the head of the perpetrator
> to the head of his ancestors. That is an elementary concept
> behind nyaya.
YEs , you can , if you swear by that ideological lineage as a role model
and in the original there is no other checks and balances as a guiding
principle .
>
> By the way, you casually dodged my ponderings about
> your opinions of Muslim morality and their comparisons
> with Hindu morality. I reproduce your writings below:
>
> >I admit that Aurangzeb was a very shrewd politician . He must have
> dissuaded the tension of one temple transformation by
> patronizing a nearby temple . That is all within politics. Who said
> Aurangzeb was a highly ethical and moral emperor ? The way
> he could kill his family members does show very clearly that
> even in terms of Islamic measure he is a very low-life criminal .
> >
>
> This is a good proof that deep in your hearts, you yourself realize
> the jahiliyat of Islam. Ideological compulsions do not permit you
> to speak out your heart however.
That has nothing to do with the JAhiliyat of ISlam . Islam does not say
to kill others . I have pretty decent knowledge of Quran and its
versions and I do accept certain interpretations over others . Please do
not lump the JAmaati version of Quran's tafsirs on me .
>
> What do you say Mr. Bose?
My ideological compulsions do tell me to figure out the best in all
religious traditions , and that is why any over-militarization of Gita
and Quran is repugnant to me . I do abhor the=King Fah'd s version of
translation and related tafsirs as well as the militarization of
Partha-Parthasarathi discourse in the same breath .
>
> nachiketa
ss...@lehigh.edu
>ss...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>>
>> In article <5tnd0k$8...@remus.rutgers.edu>, mi...@remus.rutgers.edu (Abhijit M
itr
>> a) writes:
>> >pra...@aol.com (Pran Lal) writes:
>> >
>> >> There are also written records, which show that the mindset
>> >> of Shivaji was hardly provincial or regional. One of his
>> >> letters to Aurangzeb, the text of which can be easily found
>> >> in any good history book, mentions to the atrocities commited
>> >> by Aurangzeb on Hindus. In his entire letter, he focusses
>> >> on the plight of Hindus, and never does he mention people
>> >> of a specific region.
>> >
>> >I was not aware of that. If true, then that is indeed commendable. However,
his
>> >actions against Hindus in WB and Orissa (as described by Soumitra Ji) seem
>> >contradictory to this. Could it be that his letter to Aurangzeb focussing on
>> >the plight of Hindus was merely his political facade, that he was merely out
to
>> >conquer, and he wanted to do so in the political guise of a "Hindu" liberato
r
n
>> >non-Maratha areas, atleast among the people.
>>
>> did. Blaming Shivaji for raiding Bengal and Orissa is like blaming more
>> secular Mughal rulers like Akbar for all of Aurangzeb's bigotry.
>
>
>Could you check up the BAnge BArgi History (written by many , just check
>the BAngladesher Itijhas and Nihar babus book please)
>
>BTW Bengal and Orissa was under the same NAwabi JAgir then
Please post the entire name of the author. i did not find a copy of the book
in my University's library. It will be helpful if you can post the relevant
lines.
Shivaji died in 1680 AD. I had read in "Plassey:The founding of an Empire" by
Michael Edwardes that only after the Mughals ceded Malwa to the Marathas in
1738 AD, the Marathas "found a corridor to the east and they poured through it
until they reached the sea, annexing Orissa and threatening Bengal". When you
cite, you will have to show that Shivaji's army (not that of the latter day
Marathas) went around looting and plundering villages in Bengal and Orissa.
>>
>> Shivaji's raids were limited to the Adil Shahi kingdoms of Bijapur and Mughal
>> and English bastions around Surat. I have never read anywhere that he raided
>> Rajput territory (which was the other major Hindu power of that time) or any
>> other Hindu kingdom. That is why I strongly feel that his struggle against th
e
>> Mughals were political-religious in nature and he was not just politically
>> motivated as Sayan and Nalinaksha would have us believe. Even when he raided
>> the mentioned kingdoms, he would raid treasuries and not loot poor people as
>> Soumitra is suggesting.
>
>
>Just do a little reading of the BArgi hamla . This time please read the
>books written by Gautam Bhadra. Now please do not wipe everything by
>labelling all of them as commie trash or maoists and lefties . In that
>case I have to think that are you guys really working for the MAoists or
>commies by inflating their intellectual base ....
Why don't you post the relevant lines! I couldn't find any of his work in my
University's library (maybe he is not as well recognized as you think :-)).
>> Shivaji's successors were not as disciplined as he was. There was a serious
>> power struggle among the Marathas after Shivaji's death. Whereas Shivaji's
>> raids were mostly carried out of necessity (he needed to maintain an army
>> to fight the twin threats of the Mughals and Deccan Sultans; Shivaji
>> had very little time and opportunity to develop a well-developed tax system i
n
>> his kingdom to finance his warfare) some of his successors chose this easy wa
y
>> out of collecting revenue.
>
>
>good explanations .Nice way to always get rid of accountability . It was
>the same Maratha-Hindu kingdom we were talking about , which lineages
>till today in SHiv Sena .
>
So Marx, Engels and Trotsky should be personally accountable for the millions
of Chinese who perished during the Cultural Revolution :-) because their
ideas provided the foundations of the Communist state.
>
>> >>The prince, on seeing her, immediately
>> >>responded: I wish that my mother was as beautiful
>> >>as you are. If that had been so, I would have had been
>> >>better looking. Needless to say, the woman was released
>> >
>> >Thats like the policeman who pulls over a good looking woman and then lets h
er
>> >go because shes hot. That has more to do with hormones than any sense of
>> >justice. Okay, I grant that the analogy is not perfect because traffic
>> >violations are a crime whereas being a Muslim lady is not, but you get the
>> >point.
>>
>> I am not saying that Shivaji was perfect in everything, however
>> there was a certain nobility in shivaji which you have not appreciated, yet.
I
>> have read accounts by Bristish historians (who I would expect to be more
>> impartial than Hindu/Muslim historians on this subject) which mentioned that
>> Shivaji was always respectful to women (he treated Muslim women of conquered
>> territories with respect). The same cannot be said of most mughal emperors
>> (barring Akbar and Aurangzeb).
>
>And how many Rajput women were noted friends of the Mughals including
>Akbar ..... The whole concept of Raksha bandhan with Jehangir ..... does
>that suggest all Rajput women jumped into pyres to save themselves from
>being raped ??????? Did not the similar thing happened when Maratha
>senas raped women in Bengal ????????
>
>Where does it say that the Muslim soldiers and NAwabs went on raping and
>the Hindu soldiers considered all women as mothers ????
>
Soumitra, can you read? If you can, please read again what I have written.
Where did I mention that" Muslim soldiers and Nawabs went on raping and the
Hindu soldiers considered all women as mother?" Your sense of logic really
amazes me. I was just talking about Shivaji as an individual (something which
you seem to be incapable of grasping) and compared him with the Mughal
Emperors.
Every historian has specifically mentioned that Shivaji treated women with
respect, he never treated women as spoils of war.
However, it was a general Mughal custom to take women from conquered
lands to the imperial harem irrespective of the woman's wish.
>Rajput women used to commit "Jauhar" ie:throw
>> themselves in burning pyres to prevent the shame of getting carried away to
>> the Mughal harem.
>>
>> >
>> >I'm curious, was he ever married ?
>>
>> He was. I forgot his wife's name. His son was sambhaji.
>>
>> -Sambit.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------!------------------------
Soumitra Bose
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
> Soumitra Bose (sb...@ctp.com) wrote:
>
> : > >Wasn't Shivaji known as the "founder" of the Maratha rule and didn't the
> : > >same dynasty take Shivaji's ideology of conquering new territories and
> : > >pluindering them ?????
>
> held responsible for the deeds of his descendants :-)
>
> If your grandson steals something, should we
> put you in jail ?
Didn't Shivaji do the same thing as the descendants do? Please check out
the History of Murshidkuli Khan's rule or the BAro BhNuiya history , and
their fight against Shivaji's army which spilled over to Orissa and
BAstar area ....
>
> : Wasn;t shivaji's moto was Go Brahman Raksha???? Didn't the later Maratha
> : rulers swore by Shivaji's rule ??????
>
> Fyi, Maharaja Ranjit Singh also swore by Go raksha.
> This is one of the characteristic features of
> all traditional Indian rulers. This is not something
> unique or exceptional. It would have been remarkable
> only if Shivaji had NOT sworn by go brahman raksha.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh did not cleanse out muslims from newly acquired
areas . Rajputana always had a strong muslim presence . HE did not go
into other territories and came back with the booty to distribute among
the BRahmins of his choice and his mercenaries .That is the difference
of two styles of Go-Brahman-Raksha . One is Raksha and the other is
fattening with looted booty .
>
> RS
Raghu Seshadri
Soumitra Bose (sb...@ctp.com) wrote:
: > This is a lovely bit of logic. A man is here
: > held responsible for the deeds of his descendants :-)
: >
: > If your grandson steals something, should we
: > put you in jail ?
:
: Didn't Shivaji do the same thing as the descendants do? Please check out
: the History of Murshidkuli Khan's rule or the BAro BhNuiya history , and
: their fight against Shivaji's army which spilled over to Orissa and
: BAstar area ....
Why don't you tell us, instead of asking us to
read these books, which may or may not support your
case ?
It stands to reason that if Shivaji had done exactly
what his descendants did, you wouldn't have needed
to drag their names in , to bolster your case !
This shows that you recognize that there was
a big difference.
You are trying to pin the acts of his descendants
on Shivaji himself.
: > : Wasn;t shivaji's moto was Go Brahman Raksha???? Didn't the later Maratha
: > : rulers swore by Shivaji's rule ??????
: >
: > Fyi, Maharaja Ranjit Singh also swore by Go raksha.
: > This is one of the characteristic features of
: > all traditional Indian rulers. This is not something
: > unique or exceptional. It would have been remarkable
: > only if Shivaji had NOT sworn by go brahman raksha.
:
: Maharaja Ranjit Singh did not cleanse out muslims from newly acquired
: areas . Rajputana always had a strong muslim presence . HE did not go
: into other territories and came back with the booty to distribute among
: the BRahmins of his choice and his mercenaries .That is the difference
: of two styles of Go-Brahman-Raksha . One is Raksha and the other is
: fattening with looted booty .
But you originally accused Shivaji of go-brahmana-raksha
as if 1) that was inherently supposed to be bad
and 2) as if it was unique to Shivaji and the marathas.
Neither is true.
To accuse a guerilla chief of fattening on
looted booty is pretty hilarious ! What do you
expect him to do, live on social security checks ? :-)
Next you will be accusing Robin Hood of not
paying taxes ! :-)
RS
:
:
: >
: > RS
Soumitra Bose
Please check up Nihar Ranjan Roys' BAngaleer Itihaas , BAngladesher
Itihaas by BAngla Academy (in 3 volumes - check up the part for
history).If you do not know Bangla or your library does not have it ,
please get it from Calcutta Booksellers and Publisher's guild ....
Soumitra Bose
sayan bhattacharyya wrote:
>
> In article <340359...@ctp.com>, Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> wrote:
>
> >good explanations .Nice way to always get rid of accountability . It was
> >the same Maratha-Hindu kingdom we were talking about , which lineages
> >till today in SHiv Sena .
>
> Shiv Sena thugs is as bizarre as blaming Nietzsche for the crimes of
> Hitler or blaming Marx for the crimes of Stalin.
Wasn't the same philosophy was taught and preached by Shivaji , to kick
Muslims out of the territory for saving Go-Brahman. Cite me one point
which the later Marathas did or preached which was either opposed or not
done by Shivaji and the Maratha force during his life-time ...
Supratik Das
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 nikhil_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Thanks for your input, Mr. Sharma. As you have rightly pointed out,
> Shivaji is a national hero. I don't know how Soumitra Bose and A. Mitra
> got this bizzarre idea that he is little recognized outside Maharashtra.
> It is important to remember that Shivaji started his empire from scratch.
> Obviously, most of the time he was fighting to consolidate and expand his
> nascent Swarajya in Maharashtra. But by the time of his death, his rule
> had spread to signifcant parts of Gujarat and Karnataka. It is idiotic to
> say that he fought for Maratha hegemony over other states. His rule is
> often referred as Hindvi Swarajya. For this reason, he has become a
> symbol of nationalism and self rule among Indians. There are countless
> memorials, statues of Shivaji outside Mahatashtra. Now, lets take the
> case of Bengalis. There was a beautiful poem composed by Rabindranath
> Tagore praising Shivaji's exploits. It was translated in Marathi by
> P.L.Deshpande. Also, Netaji's declaration of Azad hind govt. had
> mentioned many Maratha generals/warriors who fought the British in 18th
> and 19th century. I am sure a majority of Bengalis recognize this. The
> likes of Soumitra and Mitra are unncessarily causing controversies by
> spreading lies. Their defence of Aurangzeb is beyond any logic.
> Nikhil
Guys,
Many, in fact, numerous Bengalies name their sons Shivaji. It is one of
the more common names amongst Bengalies. I haven't heard of any other
ethnic group even Marathis name their kids after Shivaji. I can recall at
least 4 Shivajis that I know of, all Bengalies. Shivaji is a hero to most
Bengalies too. In my 25 years in Bengal I haven't heard of any popular
belief against Shivaji. If he was such a terrible tyrant I don't think
Bengalies would have named their kids after Shivaji. There is however a
popular resentment against Bargi hamlas. These were bands of thugs who
happened to be Marathas. They would terrify the Bengal hinterland and
committed many atrocities. Some of them became feudal lords too. They were
mostly tyrants and their atrocities have been recorded in Bengali
folklore. Many of them later settled in Bengal and got assimilated. There
are numerous Bengalies with Marathi sounding last names or titles.
Bengal has been ravaged by invaders since the beginning of time
including the Muslim invaders. Tyranny of Pathan and Afghan
warlords (nawabs) was also common.
Abhijit Mitra
Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
>That was the point . BTW , I do really not care much about your emotions
>or your any limb to be put down . PRan lal urf NAcho has no clue about
You`re so stupid, it's amazing.
Let me see if I can lead you through this one more time.... gently and slowly-
Nachiketa : Aurangzeb was militant against non-Muslims
Soumitra : No he was not
Nachiketa : If he was not, then why were the Sikhs forced to become militant?
(his point being, if Aurangzeb was the nice guy Soumitra says
he is,then they wouldn't have done that)
Soumitra : The Sikhs were better than Shivaji.
NOTICE THE LEAP IN LOGIC... you are arguing for a point which no one ever
raised. Nachiketa never compared SHivaji to the Sikhs, he raised the Sikhs in
a discussion about Aurangzeb.
Anyways, your points about them are well taken - my point was that you're
barking up a tree of your own creation; or maybe you do that on purpose to
create the illusion that you're smart or something. Dont worry, I know you're
not :-)
-A.M.
Pran Lal
>Wasn;t shivaji's moto was Go Brahman Raksha???? Didn't the later Maratha
>rulers swore by Shivaji's rule ??????
Two points.
Assuming that this is true, how still can the
sin be transferred to Shivaji's head.
Secondly, how does Go_Brahman_Raksha objective
translate into some of the bad acts of some of later
Marathas.
nachiketa
Pran Lal
>Sikhs did not therefore
>revolt because Aurangzeb was fanatic . Aurangzeb could not have been a
>fanatic .A
Soumitra beta:
So what else is new besides Aurangzeb. I also heard
that Aurangzeb was a Hindu and you recently got
a Nobel prize in lit.
BTW, how are Muslim ethical stds. lower than Hindu
standards. Tell me about that betaa.
nachiketa
Raghu Seshadri
Supratik Das (d...@aecom.yu.edu) wrote:
:
: belief against Shivaji. If he was such a terrible tyrant I don't think
: Bengalies would have named their kids after Shivaji. There is however a
: popular resentment against Bargi hamlas. These were bands of thugs who
: happened to be Marathas. They would terrify the Bengal hinterland and
: committed many atrocities. Some of them became feudal lords too. They were
: mostly tyrants and their atrocities have been recorded in Bengali
: folklore. Many of them later settled in Bengal and got assimilated. There
: are numerous Bengalies with Marathi sounding last names or titles.
The story of empires is always one of vibrant
ascendancy followed by gradual decline, and in the
tail end many once-magnificent dynasties end up
as nothing more than a gang of bandits. Surely the
great Mahratta empire was not an exception to this.
The famous 19th c book "Annals of Rajputana"
records a similar decline in the discipline
of the once-magnificent Sikh empire, with
marauding gangs of Sikhs living off loot
and pillage.
One of the many reasons for this in India
was that the soldiers were not on a guaranteed
fixed salary, and only had to look forward
to the loot after their victories for recompense.
This unwise system was followed throughout
the middle ages; the great innovation of
a regular salary was first instituted by
the East India Company, surely one of the
main reasons they found it so easy to recruit
men.
RS
ss...@lehigh.edu
In article <34053...@csc.com>, DSen <ds...@csc.com> writes:
>sayan bhattacharyya wrote:
>>
>> Btw, I do NOT agree with Soumitra Bose's description of Shivaji
>> as a thug. I have admiration for Shivaji, not because he was
>> a Hindu, but because he was a courageous and resourceful fighter
>> who organized his people successfully in the face of perceived
>> oppression.
>
>
>what i thought was particularly cool was the marattha warriors training
>lizards to climb up castle walls with ropes so that they could scale
>them in order to make the assault. now that was smart!
>
>and i agree, most "religious conflicts" usually have another underlying
>cause, which in this case was the resistance to central rule. Or if you
>take the case of spain, the muslim moors settled in spain, sided with
>"El Cid" (charlton heston, to the uninitiated) in the war against the
>new moorish invader from over the gibralter strait. Yet the spanish
>remember him as a great crusader against the muslims.
>
>The marattha conflict against delhi was one of many, the sikh uprising
>and the sultans of the deccan also fought against rule from delhi.
>
>daulat
>
Guru Gobind Singh organised the Sikhs to fight the Mughals after the 9th guru
Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb for refusing to embrace Islam. Later,
when the Sikh militant leader Banda Bahadur was captured he was also put to
death by the Mughal emperor FarukhSiyar for refusing to embrace Islam.
Why wern't the captives simply executed without an attempt being made to get
them converted to Islam?
Whatever be the "underlying cause"(also, how are you so sure that the underlying
cause was resistance to central rule and not personal reasons of the respective
rulers based on religion, ego, vendetta, etc?) for war for the upper echelons
of power the soldiers who fought the wars and the common civilians viewed them
as "religious conflicts".
-Sambit.
Supratik Das
Source: Deccan Herald
BJP to drag Minister to court over book
Abhijit Dasgupta/Calcutta
The CPI(M) continues to consider the BJP "fundamentalist
and fascist" despite its threat to sue the state Higher
Education Minister for having co-authored a textbook,
Rashtriya Bigyaner Ruprekha, containing derogatory
references to the saffron party.
CPI(M) sources told The Pioneer on Tuesday, "The BJP is the
worst fundamentalist party in the country and has done more
harm than good. The BJP can go to court and the law will
take its own course. But our party does not budge from its
stand on this fascist party."
However, the party distanced itself from the textbook and
left all to the Minister, Mr Satyasadhan Chakraborty. "Only
he will be able to answer questions on the case and his
personal perception.'' Mr Chakraborty, Higher Education
Minister, belongs to the CPI(M), but was unavailable for
comments.
Mr Tapan Sikdar, national secretary of the BJP, told The
Pioneer, "We have asked for Governor Raghunath Reddy's
permission to prosecute the Minister. In the meantime, we
have already started consultations with the legal cell of
the party to start court proceedings against Board of
Higher Secondary Education N K Ghosh, co-author of the
book, and the publishers, Sribhumi Publishing Company." A
libel suit will be filed in 10 days in the Calcutta High
Court.
Mr Sikdar said the book which has been approved by the
Board of Higher Secondary Education (Approval Number
AT\25\07\93) had "adverse statements in pages number 335 to
339 which lowered the dignity, image and reputation of the
BJP before the students and public with ulterior motive."
"It is also a slur on the Election Commission and
Parliament which deems us as a secular party. We will not
allow Mr Chakraborty or his party to get away with such
slander," he said.
Q
Quoting from the book, he said, "(The BJP) is considered by
many as a symbol of fundamentalism and religious bigotry.
This party wants to convert this country into a
Hindurashtra. The main organisational wing of this party is
the RSS, VHP and the Bajrang Dal. Apart from this, many
communal forces are also patronising this party. The
fundamentalist Shiv Sena is also a political ally of this
party."
Comparing the BJP's policies with those of Hitler, the
textbook goes on to say: "This party follows the policies
of a fascist dictator in to to. Disinformation is one of
its ways to gain power at the Centre. The BJP believes in
religious fascism."
"But what the BJP has to say about Hinduism is not what all
Hindus believe in. The party is distorting the religion to
suit its purpose," the book says.
Mr Sikdar is confident that Mr Reddy will give his sanction
to prosecute the Minister. "He has to. We will not rest. We
will take this up to the highest level. Though this book
was published in 1993, it has suddenly been gaining
popularity because of CPI(M) machinations. Now this book is
being widely circulated in Government schools and the
students are being given a wrong idea of what our party
stands for in their formative years.''
The BJP will not calm down until Mr Chakraborty withdraws
the book and seeks public apology for the "blasphemy".
Atul Narkhede
In article <5u4995$h...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
Raghu Seshadri <sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Now this is fascinating. What did the lizards fasten the ropes to?
>:
>: Boy, this must have taken some training :-)
>
>That would take some training, but the Mahrattas found
>an easier way. These were not lizards, I forget their
>name, they were a variety that would cling to the ramparts
>and nothing short of an elephant (so to speak) would
>be able to pry them loose. I hope you get the picture.
>
These animals are called 'ghorpaD' in Marathi. These
are reptiles similar to iguanas .. and grow anywhere from 3-6
feet in length. The story of Tanaji Malusare using a 'ghorpaD'
to scale the Sinhagad fort near Pune is a classic legend
permanently etched in every child's mind here.
One can still see a few of these in old forts/moats.
I myself saw 2 of these in Daulatabad fort near Aurangabad.
- Atul
Satish Deodhar
Atul Narkhede wrote:
> These animals are called 'ghorpaD' in Marathi. These
> are reptiles similar to iguanas .. and grow anywhere from 3-6
> feet in length. The story of Tanaji Malusare using a 'ghorpaD'
> to scale the Sinhagad fort near Pune is a classic legend
> permanently etched in every child's mind here.
>
> One can still see a few of these in old forts/moats.
> I myself saw 2 of these in Daulatabad fort near Aurangabad.
These reptiles are called Monitor Lizards if my memory serves me right.
Yes, quite big in size.
************************************************************************
Dr. Satish Y. Deodhar
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics
Georgia Station, The University of Georgia
1109 Experiment St., Griffin, GA 30223.
Tel:(770) 228-7231 ext 115, Fax:(770) 228-7208
http://members.tripod.com/~satishd/index.html
************************************************************************
Soumitra Bose
ss...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>
> In article <340499...@ctp.com>, Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
> >ss...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
> >>
> >> >sayan bhattacharyya wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On 23 Aug 1997 ss...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> throughout his empire. If "religion does not enter the equation at all
> " a
> >> s
> >> >> >> Sayan claims or if the uprisings were "the rise of regional aspiration
> >> >> >> against central hegemony" it is illogical that all the major uprisings
> ag
> >> ainst
> >> >> >> Aurangzeb (Jats, Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs, the Shia Sultans of Bijapur
> )
> >> >> >> were led by Hindus or Shia Muslims and not Sunni Muslims.
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be illogical only if there were regional Sunni Muslim powers who
> >> >> did NOT rebel against Aurangzeb but only the Shias and Hindus did. Were
> >> >> there such Sunni Muslim regional powers existent at that time?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >....
> >> >
> >> When did the Nawabs of bengal rebel against Aurangzeb? When did Aurangzeb fig
> ht
> >> a war with the Nawabs of Bengal?
> >> Aurangzeb died in 1707 AD.
> >> Even in 1736 AD, Alivardi Khan obtained a firman from the Mughal emperor
> >> legitimizing his position as the Nawab of Bengal!
> >> -Sambit.
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------!------------------------
> ---
> >> Sambit K. Saha, Ph.D !
> >> Display Research Laboratory !Apt 202, 411 Webster Str
> >> Sherman Fairchild Center for Solid State Studies !Bethlehem, PA 18015.
> >> Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science !
> >> Lehigh University !Phone:(610)758-9879
> >
> >history .
> Mr sabjanta...
> Why don't you answer specific questions which i have asked you namely
> (a) to produce the lines which mention that the bargis raided Orissa and
> Bengal under Shivaji's leadership. I have tried to look up a number of history
> books (no, I did not look up Nihar Ranjan Roy's book because it is not readily
> available to me) and nobody mentions about Shivaji's raids in Bengal and
> Orissa.
Won't you check up the books even then !!!!
Therefore
> 1) Shivaji did not raid Bengal and Orissa as claimed by you.
> 2) If he did, he did not loot, plunder and kill on a scale you are claiming.
OK now the SCALE becomes important .Agreed every human being have
different perceptions of the enoughness of the scale .... and a biased
mind is way off from general perception .
With that ,since when scale becomes a metric of moral,ethical values of
a rolemodel . How about considering a "good DATAKARNA" who simply raped
a couple of times or may be occasionally .HE definitely does it in a
much lesser scale than Pak army in Bangladesh or Indian army in
KAshmir!!!! So we should take him as a national hero or what ?????
> If everybody is ready to write about his successful and failed conquests, why
> would they leave out his raids on Bengal?
> (b) When did Aurangzeb fight a war with the Nawabs of Bengal.
Because the Nawabs wanted to declare sovereignty from Delhi , and I am
on the side of Bengal NAwabs.
>
> Start from Murshidkuli Khan . Do you have any idea even after
> >accepting Jagirs they revolted time and again ???
>
> I asked you a very specific question which was relevant to the discussion ie
> whether any Nawab of Bengal revolted against aurangzeb in the way the Sikhs,
> Rajputs, Marathas, Jats, Bundelas, Satnamis, Shia Muslims did. You have not
> answered that. Please produce dates if you can do so.
Oh yes !!!! All the then BhNuyias did , Aurangzeb had to send many
generals including Shaista khan for that job , he was succesful only for
a while and then got kicked out ....
And please do not bring in the "way" part . Every revolt against
Aurangzeb had its own way .
>
> Have you heard about
> >MAn Singh , the general of Akbar who invaded Bengal , went upto Dhaka
> >and then could not stay their for long . Now this is many generations
> >before Aurangzeb. Very much during the NAwabi time . Do you know Hussain
> >Shah himself established his regime against Delhi rule ????? Or if these
> >names are unknown to you . Can't you read a little bit of Chaitanya
> >Bhagavat or Bipradas's other Vaishnav history . Well, he was not an
> >islamist or a commie . i guess ...
>
> What is your point? Or is it just some empty "rhetoric" which other than you
> nobody can understand?
> -Sambit.
Point is simple , BEngal and her BHNUiyas were fighting the Mughals from
much earlier days , even before Akbar , and definietely from Akbar days
, this fight against Aurangzeb had nothing to do with specifically
Aurangzeb , it was against Delhi's hegemony and BEngal's sovereignty .
Soumitra Bose
Abhijit Mitra wrote:
>
> Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
>
> >That was the point . BTW , I do really not care much about your emotions
> >or your any limb to be put down . PRan lal urf NAcho has no clue about
>
> You`re so stupid, it's amazing.
>
> Let me see if I can lead you through this one more time.... gently and slowly-
>
> Nachiketa : Aurangzeb was militant against non-Muslims
>
> Soumitra : No he was not
>
> Nachiketa : If he was not, then why were the Sikhs forced to become militant?
>
> (his point being, if Aurangzeb was the nice guy Soumitra says
> he is,then they wouldn't have done that)
>
> Soumitra : The Sikhs were better than Shivaji.
that is where you try to obfuscate steps and claim yourself to be
intelligent !!!!
A person being not necessarily against Hindus as a rule does not mean he
is a nice guy. There is a very big spectrum lying in between . Sikhs
revolting against Aurangzeb does not necessarily prove that Aurangzeb
was anti-Hindu or anti-any particular religious people . There could be
and were umpteen reasons for the Sikhs to revolt against Aurangzeb least
of which because he was Sikh religion per se . The comparison of Shivaji
and Shikhs came to prove that they do not fall into the same category to
attract similar kinds of treatment from Aurangzeb .Shivaji's thuggeries
surpassed Sikhs . Sikhs had other axes to grind and the strategical
placement of Sikh-lands were more dangerous to Aurangzeb , the treatment
was thus different .
>
> NOTICE THE LEAP IN LOGIC... you are arguing for a point which no one ever
> raised. Nachiketa never compared SHivaji to the Sikhs, he raised the Sikhs in
> a discussion about Aurangzeb.
HE aligned Sikhs and Shivaji in the same line to prove that just because
they revolted and they belonged to different religions Aurangzeb is
proved to be anti-other-religious-people . Which is wrong .Aurangzeb was
no soft towards his muslim counterpart or for that matter his family
member , and that was entirely because of some other cause . He did not
kill Dara because Dara sponsored the translation Upanishad, he did for
personal-ambiton and political reasons . Aurangzeb took action
differently with different people for different reasons .
That was the point . His actions against Sikhs and Shivaji does not
necessarily make him intolerant to other religions , that is just a kids
logic , and you cerebral dough seem to escape that!!!
>
> Anyways, your points about them are well taken - my point was that you're
> barking up a tree of your own creation; or maybe you do that on purpose to
> create the illusion that you're smart or something. Dont worry, I know you're
> not :-)
Thank you, since you have figured out what I am , I would run by you
time to time .
>
> -A.M.
Abhijit Mitra
Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
>that is where you try to obfuscate steps and claim yourself to be
>intelligent !!!!
I never claimed to be intelligent :-) On the contrary, I admit to a limited
amount of 'searching' and provocating in search for the truth. It's amazing how
must people open up once you offend them.
>Sikhs revolting against Aurangzeb does not necessarily prove that Aurangzeb
>was anti-Hindu or anti-any particular religious people .
No, I agree that it does not NECESSARILY prove that. But it does prove that in
this particular case. The reason the Sikhs took up arms to begin with is due to
Aurangzebs tyrranical regime. At this time, Sikhs took up arms to protect not
only themselves but their Hindu brethren from the Mughals. Why? Because this
protection was needed.
>The comparison of Shivaji and Shikhs came to prove that they do not fall into
>the same category to attract similar kinds of treatment from Aurangzeb .
Not really. Shivaji and the Sikhs may have come from radically different
backgrounds and mindsets, but their basic gripe with the Mughals was the same -
his religious bigotry and fanaticism.
>Shivaji's thuggeries surpassed Sikhs .
This may be true. However, in no way does this help you in your argument that
Aurangzeb was some bhalo manush who loved Hindus. For example, if Mr. A, a
Hindu, lived in Pakistan, under a tyrranical Islamic regime (hypothetically),
and if Mr. A was a `thug`, does that make the Pakistani governments ill
treatment of Mr. A any better? Does that make it ok? Does that justify it?
>Aurangzeb took action differently with different people for different reasons.
Of course he did. Did I say each and every action of his in his entire life
was due to his fanaticism? No. Did anyone say that? No. So why are you
refuting somethign no one claimed to begin with? My only claim is, he was a
fanatic. Yes, there was more to his persona than just that. He was a complex
man, he did many things for many reasons. In the same vein, Shivaji was a
complex man, the Sikh movement was a complex movement. They didnt have any ONE
single reason for revolting against Aurangzeb. However, his religious bigotry
played a big role.
>you cerebral dough seem to escape that!!!
Excuse me, but what language was that?
It's weird, every time you try to insult someone in English, you land flat on
your face. Try sticking to Bangla, and I promise not to ask you what the words
mean this time :-)))
-A.M.
Abhijit Mitra
Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
>HMMM!!!! so any anti BJP is blasphemy . BJP cannot be brandished or
>criticized . Don't I smell Adolf somewhere near ??????
They can be criticized, just not through government media. They can not (or
should not) use school textbooks to further their own agenda, that's all.
Saying "The BJP is a bunch of fatheads", for example, in a public CPM rally,
is okay, but saying so in a textbook that will be taught in goverment run
schools is not. Do you get my point?
And I dont think you smell Adolf, anywhere, no. Dramabaji seems to be your
specialty.
-A
ss...@lehigh.edu
No! You have not been able to provide a date for the invasion, neither any
citation from the book (very questionable) you have mentioned to support your
claim.
No history book mentions that Shivaji raided Bengal and Orissa and I have
provided citations which mention that the Marathas invaded Orissa and Bengal
only after 1736 AD (Shivaji died in 1680 AD). Shivaji's other raids (Surat,
Bijapur, etc) are documented in practically all history books (written by
Hindu, Muslim and European historians). I am asking you one last time to
provide the date of invasion and the lines which describe the invasion. If you
do not do that, I will conclude that you are lying about Shivaji's invasion of
Bengal and Orissa. If you can do it, we will have to examine why only Nihar
Ranjan Roy mentions something which no other historian has. Can anybody
enlighten me about the credibility of Nihar ranjan Roy?
>
>
>
> Therefore
>> 1) Shivaji did not raid Bengal and Orissa as claimed by you.
>> 2) If he did, he did not loot, plunder and kill on a scale you are claiming.
> OK now the SCALE becomes important .Agreed every human being have
>different perceptions of the enoughness of the scale .... and a biased
>mind is way off from general perception .
I still maintain that Shivaji did not invade Bengal and Orissa. Till the time
you provide the actual date of invasion, relevant lines from the book and I
get evidence that Nihar Ranjan Roy can be trusted more than every other
historian who has written about Shivaji, I refuse to believe what you are
claiming. You have this habit of throwing up an obscure name to create the
impression that you can cite if necessary, but when pressed for specifics you
never, ever do so. This is dishonest.
>With that ,since when scale becomes a metric of moral,ethical values of
>a rolemodel . How about considering a "good DATAKARNA" who simply raped
>a couple of times or may be occasionally .HE definitely does it in a
>much lesser scale than Pak army in Bangladesh or Indian army in
>KAshmir!!!! So we should take him as a national hero or what ?????
>
Not applicable in light of what I have written above.
>
>
>> If everybody is ready to write about his successful and failed conquests, why
>> would they leave out his raids on Bengal?
>> (b) When did Aurangzeb fight a war with the Nawabs of Bengal.
>
>Because the Nawabs wanted to declare sovereignty from Delhi , and I am
>on the side of Bengal NAwabs.
Aurangzebs wars with any Nawab of Bengal is not mentioned in any history book
which deals comprehensively with that period (RC Majumdar, Cambridge's
Comprehensive history of India.......). I have asked you specifically for
dates and citations which you have not been able to produce so far. Please do
not mention anybody's name if you cannot provide citations, this is dishonest.
>
>>
>> Start from Murshidkuli Khan . Do you have any idea even after
>> >accepting Jagirs they revolted time and again ???
>>
>> I asked you a very specific question which was relevant to the discussion ie
>> whether any Nawab of Bengal revolted against aurangzeb in the way the Sikhs,
>> Rajputs, Marathas, Jats, Bundelas, Satnamis, Shia Muslims did. You have not
>> answered that. Please produce dates if you can do so.
>
>Oh yes !!!! All the then BhNuyias did , Aurangzeb had to send many
>generals including Shaista khan for that job , he was succesful only for
>a while and then got kicked out ....
>
Why isn't Aurangzeb's adventures in Bengal chronicled in any mainstream
history book of the time? Practically every history book will tell you that
Aurangzeb sent Mir Jumla to Assam to fight the Ahoms! Why isn't Bengal
mentioned in any reputable history book which deals with Aurangzeb's wars?
>And please do not bring in the "way" part . Every revolt against
>Aurangzeb had its own way .
>
Whatever be the details, each war had a common theme. The common theme was
religion.
>
>
>>
>> Have you heard about
>> >MAn Singh , the general of Akbar who invaded Bengal , went upto Dhaka
>> >and then could not stay their for long . Now this is many generations
>> >before Aurangzeb. Very much during the NAwabi time . Do you know Hussain
>> >Shah himself established his regime against Delhi rule ????? Or if these
>> >names are unknown to you . Can't you read a little bit of Chaitanya
>> >Bhagavat or Bipradas's other Vaishnav history . Well, he was not an
>> >islamist or a commie . i guess ...
>>
>> What is your point? Or is it just some empty "rhetoric" which other than you
>> nobody can understand?
>> -Sambit.
>
>Point is simple , BEngal and her BHNUiyas were fighting the Mughals from
>much earlier days , even before Akbar , and definietely from Akbar days
>, this fight against Aurangzeb had nothing to do with specifically
>Aurangzeb , it was against Delhi's hegemony and BEngal's sovereignty .
You havn't been able to prove that Aurangzeb had a war with the rulers of
Bengal!
>
>
>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------!------------------------
---
>> Sambit K. Saha, Ph.D !
>> Display Research Laboratory !Apt 202, 411 Webster Str
>> Sherman Fairchild Center for Solid State Studies !Bethlehem, PA 18015.
>> Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science !
>> Lehigh University !Phone:(610)758-9879
>
----------------------------------------------------!---------------------------
Soumitra Bose
What is the meaning of "BLASPHEMY" in BJp dictionary .Good to see
Satyasadhan fencing against BJP . He was once elected from South
Calcutta constituency , and then he was even known to be a little bit
pro-Hindu type within even CPM ..Now the circus would start ..
So Satyasadhan is blasphemous . BLASPHEMY against BJP ???? and BJP is
GOD???? WoW!!!! Hope they defend that statement up there in a mortal
and mundane court of law .....
ss...@lehigh.edu
>> >
>> Guru Gobind Singh organised the Sikhs to fight the Mughals after the 9th guru
>> Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb for refusing to embrace Islam. Later,
>> when the Sikh militant leader Banda Bahadur was captured he was also put to
>> death by the Mughal emperor FarukhSiyar for refusing to embrace Islam.
>> Why wern't the captives simply executed without an attempt being made to get
>> them converted to Islam?
>> Whatever be the "underlying cause"(also, how are you so sure that the underly
ing
>> cause was resistance to central rule and not personal reasons of the respecti
ve
>> rulers based on religion, ego, vendetta, etc?) for war for the upper echelon
s
>> of power the soldiers who fought the wars and the common civilians viewed the
m
>> as "religious conflicts".
>> -Sambit.
>>
---
>> Sambit K. Saha, Ph.D !
>> Display Research Laboratory !Apt 202, 411 Webster Str
>> Sherman Fairchild Center for Solid State Studies !Bethlehem, PA 18015.
>> Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science !
>> Lehigh University !Phone:(610)758-9879
>
>
>Embracing Islam was one form of breaking the soverignty of the
>independant rule and bring them under Mughal rule ...
>
Ha! Ha! Ha! Soumitra do you realize how you are contradicting yourself!
All along Soumitra was asserting that Aurungzeb never attempted
Islamization of India, now we learn that forcibly making people "embrace Islam
was one form of breaking the sovereignity of independent rule and bring them
under Mughal rule"
sayan bhattacharyya
In article <5u41rc$2l...@ns2-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>, <ss...@Lehigh.EDU> wrote:
>Whatever be the "underlying cause"(also, how are you so sure that the underlying
>cause was resistance to central rule and not personal reasons of the respective
>rulers based on religion, ego, vendetta, etc?) for war for the upper echelons
>of power the soldiers who fought the wars and the common civilians viewed them
>as "religious conflicts".
>-Sambit.
Assigning causality is a tricky business. Different things can look like
different causes at different levels of abstraction. It depends on the
level you are looking at.
A good historian will usually try to identify the structural causes
behind events, i.e look at the most general possible level of abstraction.
DSen
> : >
> : >what i thought was particularly cool was the marattha warriors training
> : >lizards to climb up castle walls with ropes so that they could scale
> : >them in order to make the assault. now that was smart!
> : Now this is fascinating. What did the lizards fasten the ropes to?
> :
> : Boy, this must have taken some training :-)
>
> That would take some training, but the Mahrattas found
> an easier way. These were not lizards, I forget their
> name,
iguana's?
> they were a variety that would cling to the ramparts
> and nothing short of an elephant (so to speak) would
> be able to pry them loose. I hope you get the picture.
>
interesting ... i thought (guessed) that they would have persuaded the
iguanas to carry a grappling hook up to the ramparts. oh well ...
fascinating.
Daulat
nikhil_d...@hotmail.com
In article <3405D3...@gaes.griffin.peachnet.edu>,
Satish Deodhar <sde...@gaes.griffin.peachnet.edu> wrote:
>
> Atul Narkhede wrote:
> > These animals are called 'ghorpaD' in Marathi. These
> > are reptiles similar to iguanas .. and grow anywhere from 3-6
> > feet in length. The story of Tanaji Malusare using a 'ghorpaD'
> > to scale the Sinhagad fort near Pune is a classic legend
> > permanently etched in every child's mind here.
> >
> > One can still see a few of these in old forts/moats.
> > I myself saw 2 of these in Daulatabad fort near Aurangabad.
>
> These reptiles are called Monitor Lizards if my memory serves me right.
> Yes, quite big in size.
>
I think Monitor lizards are much bigger. They prey on medium sized
animals like deer, pigs etc. Occasionally, they kill buffalos by biting
them and thus injecting infectious saliva in their bodies. But the
'Ghorpad' used by the Marathas seems to be quite smaller than these
giants though it is definitely bigger than the common lizards found in
gardens and inside houses. Also, the monitor lizards don't appear to be
capable of climbing walls or even trees. Anyone who has actually seen a
Ghorpad can tell something about its size.
Nikhil
> ************************************************************************
> Dr. Satish Y. Deodhar
> Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics
> Georgia Station, The University of Georgia
> 1109 Experiment St., Griffin, GA 30223.
> Tel:(770) 228-7231 ext 115, Fax:(770) 228-7208
> http://members.tripod.com/~satishd/index.html
> ************************************************************************
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Soumitra Bose
Abhijit Mitra wrote:
>
> Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> writes:
>
> >HMMM!!!! so any anti BJP is blasphemy . BJP cannot be brandished or
> >criticized . Don't I smell Adolf somewhere near ??????
>
> They can be criticized, just not through government media. They can not (or
> should not) use school textbooks to further their own agenda, that's all.
>
> Saying "The BJP is a bunch of fatheads", for example, in a public CPM rally,
> is okay, but saying so in a textbook that will be taught in goverment run
> schools is not. Do you get my point?
>
History books should not be written with partisanship, that part is true
.And actually CPM is no new to this game , it is being used in India and
the sub-continent from the british days .
> And I dont think you smell Adolf, anywhere, no. Dramabaji seems to be your
> specialty.
>
> -A
OK , Now I know that I have to know what do I smell from someone else ,
there again I smell Adolf .Or may be I need to take permission of you
....
Soumitra Bose
Supriya K. Khanolkar wrote:
>
> Further, do you know that the person most loved by the Bengali people -
> young and old alike - Rabindranath Tagore - has written a looong and
> beautiful poem on Shivaji Maharaaj ?
>
> Or was Rabindranath fooled by Shivaji's "kaarnaame" as well ?
>
> Reply anyone ?
>
> - Sups> > In article <8721139...@dejanews.com>,
> > in...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <33FA26...@ctp.com>,
> > > sb...@ctp.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That the Marathas were lowest of the low thugs led by Shivaji and others
> > > > is a fact very well known outside MAharashtra . These thugs plundered
> > > > ORissa as Aurangzeb's rule did not reach there . Alibardi khan had to
> > > > make a truce with these and leave ORissa. Only later Siraj kicked these
> > > > out of Orissa . Aurqangzeb was largely in-effective in handling with
> > > > these thugs , as his army was led by the in-effective Saista Khan .
> > > > MArathas were not fought only by Aurangzeb . All the Hindu kingdoms of
> > > > the east did fight them , the tweleve BhNuiyas did so . So enmity
> > > > towards Maratha thugs cannot be construed as anti-Hindu , it was plain
> > > > and simple anti-thuggery .
> > >
> > > What a disgrace ??. You call the great Marathas led by Chatrapathi
> > > Shivaji as "lowest of the low thugs". But for Shivaji and his chivalry
> > > "Bharath" would have been Islamized by the treacherous and nefarious
> > > designs of Aurangazeb and his Bahumani cronies. Aurangazeb is the worst
> > > among the worst thugs. Even no other Muslim ruler has parallel to his
> > > brutality and intolerance to non-Muslims. The Mogul empire reached its
> > > record nadir during his regime and the eventual collapse.
> > >
> > > Shivaji is a great National Hero. Your statement that Shivaji is known
> > > very little outside Maharastra is not tenable. Even a foreign visitor of
> > > that time like Nockoloe Manuachi (Excuse me if I have wrongly spealt his
> > > name) of Italy has given detail narration of the popular rule of Shivaji
> > > at that time. I am not from Maharastra, yet I hold Shivaji in very high
> > > esteem.
> > >
> > > Except for those lowest of the lowest self esteemed self styled champions
> > > of "Marxism" and "Bogus socialists" from Bengal (Excuse me Definitely
> > > NOT all Bengalis), every body else including the Congress
> > > UF/JD/JD(Laloo)/JD(Aloo) /AD/BSP/PMK etc. etc.. whether they are from
> > > Maharastra or other states, consider Chatrapathi Shivaji as a Great
> > > National Hero. I bet, Comrade Jyoti Busu or any of his Marxist cronies
> > > would dare to call Shivaji as a "leader of the lowest of the low thugs".
> > >
> > > Gangadhar Sharma
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for your input, Mr. Sharma. As you have rightly pointed out,
> > Shivaji is a national hero. I don't know how Soumitra Bose and A. Mitra
> > got this bizzarre idea that he is little recognized outside Maharashtra.
> > It is important to remember that Shivaji started his empire from scratch.
> > Obviously, most of the time he was fighting to consolidate and expand his
> > nascent Swarajya in Maharashtra. But by the time of his death, his rule
> > had spread to signifcant parts of Gujarat and Karnataka. It is idiotic to
> > say that he fought for Maratha hegemony over other states. His rule is
> > often referred as Hindvi Swarajya. For this reason, he has become a
> > symbol of nationalism and self rule among Indians. There are countless
> > memorials, statues of Shivaji outside Mahatashtra. Now, lets take the
> > case of Bengalis. There was a beautiful poem composed by Rabindranath
> > Tagore praising Shivaji's exploits. It was translated in Marathi by
> > P.L.Deshpande. Also, Netaji's declaration of Azad hind govt. had
> > mentioned many Maratha generals/warriors who fought the British in 18th
> > and 19th century. I am sure a majority of Bengalis recognize this. The
> > likes of Soumitra and Mitra are unncessarily causing controversies by
> > spreading lies. Their defence of Aurangzeb is beyond any logic.
> >
> > Nikhil
> >
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
> >
> >
the Shivaji Utsav program . This program was essentially introduced to
start a cultural anti-imperialist program . That poem did not try ever
to praise Shivaji as a figure as an aLL-India integrator , but as a
local rebel to the central rule .LAter on of course Rabindranath did not
like the idea and expressed his regret to many of his acquaintances .
Soumitra Bose
S. Sundar Kumar Iyer wrote:
>
> To call Shivaji an brave warrior, able administrator, good king, a
> pleasent well meaning person who was an excellent oratorial and writing
> skills or what not in his personal capacity(? don't know if he was any
> of these?), are all ok. But to call him an "Indian" hero, a person who
> defines "Indian nationalism" etc is definitely not acceptable to me.
> The same logic holds for Marathas. They might have been brave fighters
> but that does not make them any less of barbarians when they raid lands
> just to collect tax or to plunder. Just as an annecdote - the Lower
> Circular Road (now renamed but still known to old time Calcuttans by the
> old name) was originally a moat dug up to protect Calcutta from the
> Maratha raiders.
>
> The understanding of history of an average Indian always seems to be in
> binary logic - either a person is good or bad(I suppose it because the
> history books are put in black and white - pun intented). All these
> characters and events were real life entities. Definitely all of them
> will have multiple facets and depending on where and when one is viewing
> them, one can make radically different judgements.
>
> Shivaji might be an inspiration as someone who fought a mighty power if
> one may wants to view it that way. Some like to interpret it as "Hindus
> overcoming Muslim rule" (althouth I have strong reservations about this
> view and don't want to elaborate about this right now so as not to
> digress). What our history books often does not mention is that the
> Shivaji and the later Marathas did raid other kingdoms. They used to
> collect taxes from them. Imagine yourself to be a farmer in a Muslim
> kingdom and someone comes and demands tax from you when he is not even
> the ruler! Surely for them these raiders were not saviours!
>
> It is unfortunate that Shivaji - a medieval feudal king - has to be a
> symbol of indian nationalism in some parts of our country. I guess that
> direction of our nationalist movement popularised by Tilak encouraged
> "Hindu" nationalism with all its distratrous consequences. Always
> remember the Maratha kingdoms may not be as glorious as it might seem
> today far removed in time. I understand some social reforms were
> carried out during that at time but it was a far cry from the previleges
> we take for granted in modern India. (Although the threats from our
> modern day Shivaji's army in Mumbai makes us wonder whether it will last
> for long even today. For example Soumitra Bose could be roughed up
> physically for his views if he were in Bombay :-)).
>
> Also the rebuttal given by fellow netters to accept Shivaji and the
> Maratha rulers as heros because some foreign visitor said so or because
> Rabindranath wrote a beautiful poem is good only for election rallies
> but will not hold water in an academic discussion. If any Bengali
> accepts something because Rabindranath said so would be a fool in my
> humble opinion. Any way in this instance, Rabindranath must have
> praised the bravery of the Maratha fighters and Shivaji but surely must
> not have endored Maratha rule or claimed that they are symbols of Indian
> nationalistic spirit.( I have not read the poem but someone who had done
> so could correct me if I am wrong). I for one would never want to call
> Shivaji a "national hero" but a brave enterprising king at best and a
> petty medieval rular at worst.
>
> As regards Aurangazeb, the same holds. In those kingly days there were
> very few checks and balances on power and the kings personal views got
> imposed on the public. My reading or history does not find Aurangazeb
> any worse than any other king except that he made politically foolish
> and undiplomatic laws to uphold what he belied in. He or atleast his
> kingdom did pay for these, both during his lifetime and afterwards.
>
> As we are in this topic I would like to mention an experience of mine
> when I went to see a cultural program at Marathi Mandal in Madras
> (possibly in 1991). They were showing a Marathi skit where a man
> invents a time machine and is transported to the middle ages. To depict
> the arrival at that age they showed a couple of actors in "muslim dress"
> persecuting "hindus" (and they mention it in words in case you are
> wondering that I am sterotyping). The utter lack of sensitivity of this
> shocked me and I did express it to my friends. But whom are we to
> blame? (I would think a more true depection of that age would be an
> upper caste person beating an untouchable for drinking water from his
> well - possibly that was more common in those ages that muslim soldiers
> poking hindu peasents with spears because they were hindus. Possibly
> they did not do this because we might mistake the time machine to have
> arrived in modern day India. :-) ). I would think this is a direct
> result of the way history is taught in that state. I shudder to think
> what the present state government feeds the young minds. When this is
> the kind of historical understanding, how can we expect people not to
> deify Shivaji as a hero?
>
> On a personal note to Soumitra Bose - I wish you would make your
> arguments without resorting to denigrating the opposition. This shuts
> them off to many of your excellent arguments and interesting facts that
> you bring up. Also your Bengali (West Bengali) chauvinism often fades
> the brillance of your erudition evident in your postings.
>
> S. Sundar Kumar Iyer
I thank Sundar for such a wonderful post .
If I sound to be a Bengali Chauvinist , I ask a public apology .
I would however assert my identity with full force when my ethnic
identity would be threatened by some over-arching identity like the
Hindi or Hindu or North Indian or Arabic or whatever identity . I have
posted notes in favour of the struggle of the identity of the Assamese
people against endevours of Bengali hegemony .Just as an example , Many
bengalis in the lower Barak valley and even in Upper Assam resent the
spelling Asom in bangla , they say that in Bangla the name is Assam and
the name of the people is Assami . THis is awfully outrageous .Asom came
from a love of ones region and identity , it means un-parallel .The
inherent disdain of these BEngalees against their Assamese hosts let
them coin the word Assami , which in Bangla means a convicted . This is
what is chauvinism , which has to be fought tooth and nail .The Assamese
people have genuine grievances against Bengali Hegemonism in Assam .And
I would support them in their struggle against BEngali chauvinism .We
have reduced the rightful citizens of tripura into being "tribals" .That
is bengali chauvinism .Similar kinds of chauvinism is also used by the
Bengalis in hilly Chattogram in BAngladesh .
Hindu-Hindi-Hindia is an ideology .Normal Hindi speaking populace have
least to do with it. This is a hegemonistic philosophy which tries to
dissolve all cultural diversities in India . My knowledge of Hindi
litterature is no less than an average Hindi speaking graduate , yet I
must say that any attempt to put that culture on us would be very
vociferously resisted . I guess most of the bengalees would think in the
same line . A big portion of my life activities were spent among the
non-bengalis in various states of India , and I have grown up among them
.
Again thanks for the note and please rest assured , when I fight against
HINDU-HINDI-HINDIA , i do not fight against Hindi civilisation or
definitely not Hindu-civilization(whatever that means ) and do not
cherish Bengali chauvinism in any way .
S. Sundar Kumar Iyer
Soumitra Bose
ss...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> Guru Gobind Singh organised the Sikhs to fight the Mughals after the 9th guru
> >> Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb for refusing to embrace Islam. Later,
> >> when the Sikh militant leader Banda Bahadur was captured he was also put to
> >> death by the Mughal emperor FarukhSiyar for refusing to embrace Islam.
> >> Why wern't the captives simply executed without an attempt being made to get
> >> them converted to Islam?
> ing
> >> cause was resistance to central rule and not personal reasons of the respecti
> ve
> >> rulers based on religion, ego, vendetta, etc?) for war for the upper echelon
> s
> >> of power the soldiers who fought the wars and the common civilians viewed the
> m
> >> as "religious conflicts".
> >> -Sambit.
> >>
> ---
> >> Sambit K. Saha, Ph.D !
> >> Display Research Laboratory !Apt 202, 411 Webster Str
> >> Sherman Fairchild Center for Solid State Studies !Bethlehem, PA 18015.
> >> Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science !
> >> Lehigh University !Phone:(610)758-9879
> >
> Soumitra says......
> >
> >Embracing Islam was one form of breaking the soverignty of the
> >independant rule and bring them under Mughal rule ...
> >
> Ha! Ha! Ha! Soumitra do you realize how you are contradicting yourself!
>
> All along Soumitra was asserting that Aurungzeb never attempted
> Islamization of India, now we learn that forcibly making people "embrace Islam
> was one form of breaking the sovereignity of independent rule and bring them
> under Mughal rule"
>
> -
What nonsense !!! putting conditions to a ruler to embrace islam is not
forcibly proselytization of the people . Raja Ganesh made his son
embrace Islam and saved his kingdom for a while and at the end
re-converted his grandsons to the old religion and still kept his rule
intact as the Delhi rule was weakened . Again a political stance .
Proselytization of the people is different .Now that is a viewpoint , if
you consider a ruler equated to the populace , that is an entirely
outrageous viewpoint , which is self depicting .
Raghu Seshadri
S. Sundar Kumar Iyer (s...@eecs.Berkeley.edu) wrote:
: imposed on the public. My reading or history does not find Aurangazeb
: any worse than any other king except that he made politically foolish
: and undiplomatic laws to uphold what he belied in.
Then we can only conclude that your reading
of history could use some improvement.
You are claiming that all the kings did
atrocities comparable to the following -
i) demolished more than ONE THOUSAND temples in Benares district
alone; and built a huge mosque on the site where the
holiest of the holy, the Vishwanathji mandir, stood.
ii) let loose mad elephants at hindus protesting the
hated jazia tax and killed an estimated 25,000
at Chandni Chowk.
iii) killed all of his brothers who were a potential threat
to his throne, imprisoned his father, tortured
and beheaded Dara Shikoh, his eldest brother
and presented the head wrapped in silk to his father
as a birthday present; this drove his father,
who doted on Dara, into dementia.
There are a lot more such beauties, but this
should suffice to make your point. Do
you find all this no worse than the act of
any other king ?
RS
S. Shirolkar
Only one comment, if all the kings of Bharat had rallied behind Shivaji
& Marathas and Ranjit Singh & Sikhs, there would not have British Rule.
This would have avoided many problems associated with British rule
including Partition of the Bharat.
Satish Shirolkar.
nikhil_d...@hotmail.com
In article <5u5b7u$17...@ns5-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>,
ss...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
> >> >How can one with a bengali name have so poor knowledge about Bengal's
> >> >history .
> >> Mr sabjanta...
> >> Why don't you answer specific questions which i have asked you namely
> >> (a) to produce the lines which mention that the bargis raided Orissa and
> >> Bengal under Shivaji's leadership. I have tried to look up a number of
histor
> y
> >> books (no, I did not look up Nihar Ranjan Roy's book because it is not
readil
> y
> >> available to me) and nobody mentions about Shivaji's raids in Bengal and
> >> Orissa.
> >
> >Won't you check up the books even then !!!!
>
> No! You have not been able to provide a date for the invasion, neither any
> citation from the book (very questionable) you have mentioned to support your
> claim.
How can he provide a date for an event that never occurred?
> No history book mentions that Shivaji raided Bengal and Orissa and I have
> provided citations which mention that the Marathas invaded Orissa and Bengal
> only after 1736 AD (Shivaji died in 1680 AD). Shivaji's other raids (Surat,
> Bijapur, etc) are documented in practically all history books (written by
> Hindu, Muslim and European historians). I am asking you one last time to
> provide the date of invasion and the lines which describe the invasion. If you
> do not do that, I will conclude that you are lying about Shivaji's invasion of
> Bengal and Orissa. If you can do it, we will have to examine why only Nihar
> Ranjan Roy mentions something which no other historian has. Can anybody
> enlighten me about the credibility of Nihar ranjan Roy?
Maybe he wrirtes fiction!
> >
> >
> >
> > Therefore
> >> 1) Shivaji did not raid Bengal and Orissa as claimed by you.
> >> 2) If he did, he did not loot, plunder and kill on a scale you are
claiming.
> > OK now the SCALE becomes important .Agreed every human being have
> >different perceptions of the enoughness of the scale .... and a biased
> >mind is way off from general perception .
See how Soumitra dodged first questoin and diverted attention somewhere
else!
>
> I still maintain that Shivaji did not invade Bengal and Orissa. Till the time
> you provide the actual date of invasion, relevant lines from the book and I
> get evidence that Nihar Ranjan Roy can be trusted more than every other
> historian who has written about Shivaji, I refuse to believe what you are
> claiming. You have this habit of throwing up an obscure name to create the
> impression that you can cite if necessary, but when pressed for specifics you
> never, ever do so. This is dishonest.
Earlier, he mentioned some Sunil Ganguly who made a discovery of the
century viz Tagore regretting his poem about Shivaji. What a change of
heart!
>
> >With that ,since when scale becomes a metric of moral,ethical values of
> >a rolemodel . How about considering a "good DATAKARNA" who simply raped
> >a couple of times or may be occasionally .HE definitely does it in a
> >much lesser scale than Pak army in Bangladesh or Indian army in
> >KAshmir!!!! So we should take him as a national hero or what ?????
> >
>
> Not applicable in light of what I have written above.
> >
> >
> >> If everybody is ready to write about his successful and failed conquests,
why
> >> would they leave out his raids on Bengal?
> >> (b) When did Aurangzeb fight a war with the Nawabs of Bengal.
> >
> >Because the Nawabs wanted to declare sovereignty from Delhi , and I am
> >on the side of Bengal NAwabs.
Again the first question "why would they leave out his raids on Bengal"
conviniently ignored!!!!
>
> Aurangzebs wars with any Nawab of Bengal is not mentioned in any history book
> which deals comprehensively with that period (RC Majumdar, Cambridge's
> Comprehensive history of India.......). I have asked you specifically for
> dates and citations which you have not been able to produce so far. Please do
> not mention anybody's name if you cannot provide citations, this is dishonest.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Start from Murshidkuli Khan . Do you have any idea even after
> >> >accepting Jagirs they revolted time and again ???
> >>
> >> I asked you a very specific question which was relevant to the discussion
ie
> >> whether any Nawab of Bengal revolted against aurangzeb in the way the
Sikhs,
> >> Rajputs, Marathas, Jats, Bundelas, Satnamis, Shia Muslims did. You have not
> >> answered that. Please produce dates if you can do so.
> >
> >Oh yes !!!! All the then BhNuyias did , Aurangzeb had to send many
> >generals including Shaista khan for that job , he was succesful only for
> >a while and then got kicked out ....
> >
> Why isn't Aurangzeb's adventures in Bengal chronicled in any mainstream
> history book of the time? Practically every history book will tell you that
> Aurangzeb sent Mir Jumla to Assam to fight the Ahoms! Why isn't Bengal
> mentioned in any reputable history book which deals with Aurangzeb's wars?
>
> >And please do not bring in the "way" part . Every revolt against
> >Aurangzeb had its own way .
> >
> Whatever be the details, each war had a common theme. The common theme was
> religion.
Well said!
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Have you heard about
> >> >MAn Singh , the general of Akbar who invaded Bengal , went upto Dhaka
> >> >and then could not stay their for long . Now this is many generations
> >> >before Aurangzeb. Very much during the NAwabi time . Do you know Hussain
> >> >Shah himself established his regime against Delhi rule ????? Or if these
> >> >names are unknown to you . Can't you read a little bit of Chaitanya
> >> >Bhagavat or Bipradas's other Vaishnav history . Well, he was not an
> >> >islamist or a commie . i guess ...
> >>
> >> What is your point? Or is it just some empty "rhetoric" which other than
you
> >> nobody can understand?
> >> -Sambit.
> >
> >Point is simple , BEngal and her BHNUiyas were fighting the Mughals from
> >much earlier days , even before Akbar , and definietely from Akbar days
> >, this fight against Aurangzeb had nothing to do with specifically
> >Aurangzeb , it was against Delhi's hegemony and BEngal's sovereignty .
Bengal's sovereignity? How many Nawabs(or Bhuniyas) identified themselves
with the local populace? Can anybody tell me how much respect they
commanded from the Bengali people (apart from present day communists)?
> You havn't been able to prove that Aurangzeb had a war with the rulers of
> Bengal!
Well done Sambit! Press him for the answers of your questions and don't
let him divert the discussion to some flimsy topic.
Nikhil : "Don't let regional chauvinism overshadow the historic facts"
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
----------------------------------------------------!------------------------
> ---
> >> Sambit K. Saha, Ph.D !
> >> Display Research Laboratory !Apt 202, 411 Webster
Str
> >> Sherman Fairchild Center for Solid State Studies !Bethlehem, PA 18015.
> >> Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science !
> >> Lehigh University !Phone:(610)758-9879
> >
>
>
----------------------------------------------------!---------------------------
> Sambit K. Saha, Ph.D !
> Display Research Laboratory !Apt 202, 411 Webster Str
> Sherman Fairchild Center for Solid State Studies !Bethlehem, PA 18015.
> Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science !
> Lehigh University !Phone:(610)758-9879
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
S. Sundar Kumar Iyer
> : any worse than any other king except that he made politically foolish
> : and undiplomatic laws to uphold what he belied in.
>
> of history could use some improvement.
I certainly agree.
> You are claiming that all the kings did
> atrocities comparable to the following -
>
> i) demolished more than ONE THOUSAND temples in Benares district
> alone; and built a huge mosque on the site where the
> holiest of the holy, the Vishwanathji mandir, stood.
>
> ii) let loose mad elephants at hindus protesting the
> hated jazia tax and killed an estimated 25,000
> at Chandni Chowk.
>
> iii) killed all of his brothers who were a potential threat
> to his throne, imprisoned his father, tortured
> and beheaded Dara Shikoh, his eldest brother
> and presented the head wrapped in silk to his father
> as a birthday present; this drove his father,
> who doted on Dara, into dementia.
>
> There are a lot more such beauties, but this
> should suffice to make your point. Do
> you find all this no worse than the act of
> any other king ?
>
> RS
Raghu, you are right that these are deeds of which no one would feel
proud to be credited with, at least in modern times. My purpose is not
to justify Aurangazeb's rule or to denigrate Shivaji's rule or his
existance. Both were historical characters set in another time.
Defending their action or condemning it is a fruitless excerise
especially in modern times. Go into the life of most kings and you will
find actions which cannot be justified in the modern times.
Unfortunately, these ideas are personalised and are often exploited to
suit one's political agenda. What bugs me is that the emphesis is on
Aurangazeb being a Muslim ruler. Also Shivaji is glorified as a Hindu
liberater. They are used as representatives of certain groups which
they certainly were not. It cannot be denied that Marathas were
perceived as marauderers in some regions of what is now India. When we
talk of history, let us try and present facts from every side and learn
what we can from the situation. Depending on whether you are learing
history in Lahore or in Pune, different aspects are highlighted. It is
when such one-sided history is presented that articles as the starting
article of this thread serves as a shock treatment. It tells us that
even during Aurangazeb's rule the situation was not as simple as one
comes to believe reading our history or listening to our political party
propaganda.
Rather than being judgemental, I would learn from the events. Clearly,
Aurangazeb's rule showed that enforcing a single view-point, especially
in a vast and diverse country leads to the weakening and break-up of the
country. Discriminating the populace on the basis of their religion,
upbringing, etc. will ultimately divide the society. Unfortunately,
these very lessons are lost on the political forces which try and
capitalise this piece of history. Instead, the emphesis is on
Aurangazeb's being muslim and hence, according to these people, he
committed horrible acts. They, however, invariably fail to mention that
he lived an austere simple life compared to the potentates of that age.
As an example, Buddhist texts will talk of Ashoka having killed his 100
brothers in his war or accession to the throne and all sorts of
condemnable behaviour. They had an agenda - to show the transformation
that comes about when a Hindu becomes a Buddhist. The present day
history books also seem to have an axe to grind. Bias is inevitable but
to state historical assessments and views as absolute facts are not
desirable.
S. Sundar Kumar Iyer
> : persecuting "hindus" (and they mention it in words in case you are
> : wondering that I am sterotyping). The utter lack of sensitivity of this
> : shocked me and I did express it to my friends. But whom are we to
> : blame? (I would think a more true depection of that age would be an
> : upper caste person beating an untouchable for drinking water from his
> : well - possibly that was more common in those ages that muslim soldiers
> : poking hindu peasents with spears because they were hindus. Possibly
> : they did not do this because we might mistake the time machine to have
> : arrived in modern day India. :-) ). I would think this is a direct
> : result of the way history is taught in that state. I shudder to think
>
> and conclude that one was "more true" than the other ! :-)
> What is meant by "more true" ?
>
Clearly the opression of untouchables was more previlant and spread-out
over the whole of the middle ages compared to the occational clash of
cultures of local people and foreign rulers who arrived. My
understanding is (which no doubt you will point out need widening and I
would love to do it as and when possible) that on the whole Hindus and
Muslims lived in harmony through the ages with occasional periods of
intolerance. This is evident from the syncretic culture that has
evolved over the middle ages - the Bhakti movement, the classical musics
and dances, the dress, the cusines, languages, etc. So, how is it that
the whole period be represented by a few event which at most was a
transient. Please note most of the "hindu-muslim" clashes took place in
this century. This is why I called the former event "more true" of that
age.
> Both these things happened - upper caste harassment of
> untouchables, and muslim harassment of hindus.
> Let's agree that to show muslim harassment of hindus
> is showing of lack of sensitivity - just curious,
> would you also call depiction of untouchable
> harassment in a play "lack of sensitivity" ?
>
> There was indeed a popular play in Tamil called
> "Nandanar charitram", which depicted the travails
> of this untouchable bhakta of Vishnu called
> Nandanar at the hands of the upper castes. I don't
> remember anyone remarking on its "lack of
> sensitivity". Rather it provoked compassion for
> the plight of the untouchables.
>
> RS
Let explain why it seemed like insensitivity to me. The play had
**nothing to do with politics or history**. The **only** thing that
came to the mind of the skit writer when he thought about the middle
ages was Muslims persecuting Hindus. Muslims who came to this region of
the world, settled here. Most of the persecution with some exception
was by medieval kings who would have persecuted anyone irrespective of
their religion. Most of the Muslims whom we find around us today are
totally integrated to the population. The constant harping on the
persecution of the Hindus by Muslims to me is a result of a wider
political scheme - to make sure that Hindus always regard Muslims with
suspicion and feel insecure. Please note the constant feeding of this
insecurity in the minds of the population is the first step to creat a
division which is exploited politically. What I saw in the play was a
result of this propaganda which goes on in the history books. Do we have
any Muslim persecution of Hindus today? India is a democracy and we
even have "Hindu" parties forming governments. The unecessary harping
of some historical events out of context at an unexpected place is what
I felt was insensitive. It was insensitive to the general well being of
the society by unconsciously breeding insecurity and division.
The example you quoted is not similar to the skit I mentioned. The
purpose of the play you refer to is to show that love and devotion is
above caste divisions and discrimination. Any statement or policy that
aims to divide the people - turns them against one another is
insensitive. That play, if at all, attempts to bring people together
and shows the absurdity of caste discrimination and that all human
beings are the same.
Supriya K. Khanolkar
Reply anyone ?
- Sups
Raghu Seshadri
S. Sundar Kumar Iyer (s...@eecs.Berkeley.edu) wrote:
a splendid article on the importance of learning
from history, of not being biased, of not being
bigoted.
Ofcourse I agree with all this; but being men with
good intentions does not give us a license to
alter history. Even by the standards of the times,
Aurangzeb was a man of great malevolence,
of great religious bigotry, sinister cruelty
and fanaticism. The few examples I gave should
suffice.
To whitewash his peculiar tyranny as "no worse
than other kings" is doing great injustice to
truth, however well motivated you are. He WAS
much worse than other kings.
And a pet peeve; considering the scale of horrible
harm that he did, to tell us that " people forget
he was austere and made rotis with his own hand
and stitched shoes himself" is quite laughable.
Is this supposed to make him look better ?
Does it matter to those who suffered under his
tyranny that he made his own shoes ? Stalin
lived austerely too, you know. And Hitler doted
on his dog Blondie.
I'd prefer that a man indulges in a life of
100 % pleasure as long as he doesn't harm others,
rather than be austere and harass everyone.
It is of no consequence to anyone how austere
he was. In fact it would have been better for
India if he had not been austere.
It is no coincidence that no one is excited
about Jehangir; the drunken sot didn't cause
as much harm by Mogul standards; whereas the
austere Aurangzeb did.
RS
Pran Lal
SB wrote:
>Pran Lal wrote:
>>
>> >Wasn;t shivaji's moto was Go Brahman Raksha???? Didn't the later Maratha
>> >rulers swore by Shivaji's rule ??????
>>
>> Two points.
>>
>> Assuming that this is true, how still can the
>> sin be transferred to Shivaji's head.
>
>The sin of rape and torture of BEngal does not get transferred , but the
>sin of the loot,rape,arsonist culture gets .Actually Shivaji is culprit
>of starting those cultures within India as an intra-Indian force within
>India. PReviously only Afghan and Turk mercenaries did it and they left
>the country with the booty , now the Indians started it , left the place
>but amassed the booty in Maharashtra .
>
>>
>> Secondly, how does Go_Brahman_Raksha objective
>> translate into some of the bad acts of some of later
>> Marathas.
>
>Go-Brhman raksha per se was followed by almost all Hindu kings .But
>using the slogans to mop out muslim peasants and commoners and looting
>other's property (including Hindus) and distributing them among
>Maharashtrian Brahmans were popularized(if not pioneered ) by Shivaji ,
>and that was very wrong .
>>
>> nachiketa
>
One more example of mere "PM", Oupanidhashik babble.
Plainly and rightly ignored.
nachiketa
sayan bhattacharyya
>Supriya K. Khanolkar wrote:
>>
>> Further, do you know that the person most loved by the Bengali people -
>> young and old alike - Rabindranath Tagore - has written a looong and
>> beautiful poem on Shivaji Maharaaj ?
>>
>> Or was Rabindranath fooled by Shivaji's "kaarnaame" as well ?
>>
>> Reply anyone ?
>>
>> - Sups
Interestingly...
Tagore also wrote the following poem (it is in his book "Katha o Kahini"):
"Maratha dasyu asitechhe oi, koro koro sobe saj,
Ajmir goRe kohilo hNakiya durgesh Dumraj..."
about Maratha raids into Rajput-controlled Rajputana.
sayan bhattacharyya
In article <34072B...@ctp.com>, Soumitra Bose <sb...@ctp.com> wrote:
>, or history of the BAro BhNyuias by again Nihar Ranjan , also Dinesh
>Sen's history of the BhNuiya period
Soumitro,
I am interested in reading the two books mentioned above as the
era of the "baro bhNuia"s holds a special fascination for me.
Can you post the names of the two books and the publishers?
Thanks,
-Sayan.
kiSHOr
> note with my introduction , neither did I nor did Mr PAndey's note
> mentioned anything about Aurangzeb's secularism . Aurangzeb was avowedly
> a non-secular ,very islamic and quite often more of a bigot than any
Klling brothers, imprisoning his own father is Islamic act. This is new
to me that Islam teaches such things.
> other emperors. But the point is with this fact ,it is proved that he
> did patronize some very important non-muslim religious institutions
> .This is also true that he oredered Somnath temple to be demolished
> (though the reason was not unanimously agreed upon by historians).
> Why this dichotomy , how should one explain him demolishing some temples
> while patronizing others , especially when he was not a secular emperor
> and when he wanted the islamic law to be used as a state religion and
> when he himself practiced orhtodox Islam ????
Aurangzeb destroyed and desecrated temples and schools at their
will, with the main aim of spreading of islamism. Some of the
temples were even converted to musjids at the public expense.
Their victories in the war came with the Sunnah of Prophet,
which requires the warriors to sack and burn down villages and
towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows,
the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in
mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were
their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom
they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude
of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure
of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as
mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service
of Allah and his Last Prophet.
> The explanation is simple . He did not break those temples , because
> they were hindu-temples and he did not want any hindu temples around ,
> in that case hindu-sikh or budhhist-jain temples would not have survived
> in so great numbers(I am talking about the big temples) . The reason
Don't you think that you are contradicting yourself in your statement.
> again is economic
>
> Those temples were exploiting the local populace and gathering immense
> wealth in their Garbhgriha (the famous story of rescuing a raped local
> queen from the Garbhgriha of a Venaras temple by the mughal army at the
> behest of the local people is well known). MAny such economic
> super-powers were demolished by the Mughal army being approached by the
> local populace . Those temples who did not have anything to do , did not
> experience any such demolitions .
Or you might want to rephrase that those temples who did not have
any wealth, or did not have any worshippers left.
>
> The history of transforming a place of worship into another place of
> worship for another community was well in vogue for a long time .
> Jagannath temple had been changed to a Hindu temple from a Tantrik
> temple , and that was done under the auspices of Gaudadhipati Hussain
> Shah , that was a purely political move to spread Vaishnavism and the
> rule of Gaud to Orissa renaming it Nilachal . When people of Orissa came
> in to ask Chaitanya who now they should follow, he clearly indicated
> that the king of Puri now should declare his allegiance to the
> Gaudadhipati . This politics went on for a long time .
>
> It is interesting to note that no such transformation created any noted
> or known rumblings among the people because those edifices were not
> transformed into simple community rooms or administrative buildings ,
> but made Musjids . Almost all those transformed edifices were
> thenceforth revered by people of all religions and became a Tirth of
"Of all religions". You might be right there. After having converted
the civilians to muslims, they would have musjids as their Tirth.
> Hindus too. This is because of the fact that every religion within the
> so-called Hindu diaspora considered every path to be acceptable . That
> is the reason that all these transformed spots still remained Hindu
> revered spots and muslims had no problem in allowing that , until very
What makes you think that the Hindus would have succombed to
the fact that these temples once where they worshipped their
gods/goddesses are now turned to musjids. The people were helpless
in the aurangzeb era. No one dared to come out and speak the truth
or else he might loose his life, face the torture to his family
and have his house/farm burnt. Aurangzeb knew it and he was
confident that his army would be able to demolish any such
movements from the local religious groups.
> recently when the Hindutvadis started jumping .
It is high time, what it was before should be restored back. Moghul
empire is gone, british are gone. If it can not be done now, then
when?
>
> That the Marathas were lowest of the low thugs led by Shivaji and others
> is a fact very well known outside MAharashtra . These thugs plundered
> ORissa as Aurangzeb's rule did not reach there . Alibardi khan had to
> make a truce with these and leave ORissa. Only later Siraj kicked these
> out of Orissa . Aurqangzeb was largely in-effective in handling with
> these thugs , as his army was led by the in-effective Saista Khan .
> MArathas were not fought only by Aurangzeb . All the Hindu kingdoms of
> the east did fight them , the tweleve BhNuiyas did so . So enmity
You are dead wrong here. Marathas fought with the Moghuls. They
fought with the people who came from outside the country to plunder,
loot. Had marathas not fought, it would not have taken time for
Aurangzeb to Islamize every person in India. Have every temple
demolished, and convert Hindustan to an Islamic country Shivaji was a
great hero.
He had the respect for all the cultures even including Muslim. But he
hated the Moghul empire for their lootmar in India, expolitation of
working class. As the Moguls army outnumbered Marathas, Shivaji had
to take the thug route to defeat the enemy. I persnally see no problems
here. The Aurangzeb army burnt villages, devastated the land,
plundered people's wealth, took Brahmins and children and women
of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried
a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into
obsequious Turks. Comparing this I will say thug route (ganimi kawa
as it is referred to as), is more decent.
> towards Maratha thugs cannot be construed as anti-Hindu , it was plain
> and simple anti-thuggery .
Think twice before you write these nonsense to this newsgroup.
Sugato Bhattacharyya
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95.970829...@yellow.weeg.uiowa.edu>, "S.
Shirolkar" <shi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> Only one comment, if all the kings of Bharat had rallied behind Shivaji
> & Marathas and Ranjit Singh & Sikhs, there would not have British Rule.
> This would have avoided many problems associated with British rule
> including Partition of the Bharat.
> Satish Shirolkar.
On a similar vein, if all kings and satraps in Bharat had uniformly
rallied behind the Mughal throne, there would not have been British rule.
This would also have avoided many problems, perhaps including partition.
What either of these statements establishes is, however, compeletely
beyond me.
Also, if Eve had not taken a bite ......... ;-)
--
Sugato Bhattacharyya
Supratik Das
On 28 Aug 1997, sayan bhattacharyya wrote:
> >Whatever be the "underlying cause"(also, how are you so sure that the underlying
> >cause was resistance to central rule and not personal reasons of the respective
> >rulers based on religion, ego, vendetta, etc?) for war for the upper echelons
> >of power the soldiers who fought the wars and the common civilians viewed them
> >as "religious conflicts".
> >-Sambit.
> Assigning causality is a tricky business. Different things can look like
> different causes at different levels of abstraction. It depends on the
> level you are looking at.
>
> A good historian will usually try to identify the structural causes
> behind events, i.e look at the most general possible level of abstraction.
Whew. What was all that about? You intellectuals are so difficult to
understand. We are poor people (I mean mental faculty). Why don't you guys
talk in terms we common people understand? Heh, heh, heh.
Supratik Das
On 28 Aug 1997, Pran Lal wrote:
> >Sikhs did not therefore
> >revolt because Aurangzeb was fanatic . Aurangzeb could not have been a
> >fanatic .A
> Soumitra beta:
> So what else is new besides Aurangzeb. I also heard
> that Aurangzeb was a Hindu and you recently got
> a Nobel prize in lit.
No actually Soumitra recently discovered that his ancestors were descended
from Aurungzeb. Now Don't ask me, How?
> nachiketa
Supratik