Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian

#319 salim: I am glad we agree on the part you quoted (and of course it applies to all ``Greats`` of history, not just muslims or hindus).

As for the other things you mentioned: The important thing is that we have an objective standard to measure such issues against. And - if one`s goal is the welfare of man and not the welfare of God (who I am sure does not need man to write him welfare checks) - then that measure to my mind must be the two R`s I mentioned. Take that as the measure, apply known facts and logic to it, and I think most people will arrive at common conclusions.

#318, {``Nearly all the other ``Greats`` and ``Magnificents`` in history - hindu or muslim - are neither, since whether they were shiva ji or aurangzeb, they were first and foremost fighting for the throne while the idiots who consider themselves ``muslims`` or ``hindus`` applaud their respective sides as if they were fighting for them``}

Amen! to most of what you said. In the hindu or muslim, please add Christian, Jewish, and Jehovah`s Witnesses. :)

Westerners ``get it`` as long as the system and rules favor the Judeo-Christian ``white`` folks. Peace, justice, equality, status quo, human rights and democracy are all good things as long as their side is on top. Some examples:

One man one vote - except in Israel
No use of nukes - except on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
No nukes for Iran - don`t even mention Israel
Human rights for all - except Palestinians, Chechens, and Muslims in general
Torture is illegal - except when questioning ``terrorists``
Defend the helpless natives against encroachment - except American Indians, Aborigines in Australia, Maoris in NZ, and Palestinians in Palestine
One man one vote - but have vetos for ``permanent members``
Democracy everywhere - except in countries where our friends are dictators.

#312 salim/bahram/and you my friend who is reading this. This is my Rant for the Day, :-)

The Age of Reason and the Rights of the Individual (in other words, the two R`s that a society needs in order to be considered civilzed) did not simply appear one fine day in the 15th, 16th or subsequent centuries. Rather, there has been a constant struggle towards it at many different dimensions in all societies, with the west clearly miles ahead of the rest of the world. The US is a perfect example of this struggle - it started with ``embattled farmers firing the shot heard around the world`` (and yes, a few hundred miles south blacks were slaves in the US at the same time), and then the struggle continued with another major step forward towards the two R`s being taken at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the Civil War, and then the struggle continued with another step being taken with Rosa Parks refusing to stand up and give up her seat to a white man. In Pakistan the struggle continues too - and Mukhtaran Mai who refused to sit down and give up her dignity to the brown man. The US gets it, and the day Mukhtaran Mai was being honored in the US, Rosa Parks was also being honored with her dead body lying in state at the Capital where Ronald Reagan had lain just a few months back. There are numerous other such battles, mostly fought in the west, but now being fought around the world for the Rights of the Individual.

The above is the Bottom-up route of the two R`s. There is another route - th Top Down route. That hasnt worked, as the examples below show:

1. The Top-Down routes: ``Enlightened`` rulers have tried to introduce the two R`s. These include the following and have all been failures.

a. Tsar Peter of Russia (who went disguised as a workman to the west in order to learn the secrets of western progress, learnt about locks and clocks, came back and put a beard tax and personally cut off with scissors the hems of the kulak cloaks with the kulaks still inside them shaking with fear, to make them more parisian like, and then beheaded his son thus proving that he didnt quite get it);

b. Alexander II of Russia a hundred years later (who freed the serfs in Russia around the same time as Lincoln freed the slaves in the US, tried to introduce constitutional government, and then was blown to pieces for his trouble by marxist extremists who thus proved that they didnt quite get it either);

c. the Ottoman emperor Abdul Mejid - or rather his enlightened minister Rashid - who announced in 1839 the Tanzimat (i.e. restructuring) of the entire political and social system, and who along with successors tried for the next half century to implement them - only to fail because the military and mullahs opposed all reforms except those in the military: thus proving that the military and the mullahs didnt get it. Ataturk then re-tried these reforms after the empire was lost as a result of the turk military and mullahs, and again took the same narrow route of forgetting the two R`s mentioned above.

d. Tipu Sultan tried to do this (as described in my earlier post), and before he could prove anything, the brits realized what he was up and why he was far more dangerous than the rest of the indian monarchs put together - and thus made it a priority to destroy him. So, he never got a chance to prove that whether he understood the two R`s (most likely, as a king, I doubt that he did).

e. Asoka forswore war, which was a step in the direction of the two R`s. But this initiative did not last beyond his death, and the empire dissolved and the usual dog-fights for the throne continued in India until the Brits became the Top Dogs and put and end to it.

Nearly all the other ``Greats`` and ``Magnificents`` in history - hindu or muslim - are neither, since whether they were shiva ji or aurangzeb, they were first and foremost fighting for the throne while the idiots who consider themselves ``muslims`` or ``hindus`` applaud their respective sides as if they were fighting for them. The shia sunni split is the result of the same power struggle, and we have the idiots killing one another centuries later.


What all these idiots need is a sound ganna thrashing from Bahram!!

#316, bolta_aina {``History is not to be read. It is to be learnt. This whole hogwash of Hindu-Muslim should end. It will kill one and paralyse the another. The only way forward is Secularism and peaceful co-existence ,which all the communities must accept from their hearts and move on.``}

Oh, Great & Shiny Conversant One, :)

What a beautifully stated sentiment. I agree with everything you said. Aurangzeb in Deccan, Abdali at Panipat, Indira at Dacca may have all won their battles, but these were probably Pyrrhic victories. Hopefully, we can learn our lessons and reunite rather than risk another more devastating ``victory`` - this time involving nukes. Some people, e.g. Sniper, are already talking about how India would come out ``ahead`` in a nuclear exchange. Thanks,

#288 SALIM BHAI

If we go through the finer prints of Hindu-Muslim duels in the latter part of the last millenium, then will find that these duels resulted in the weakening of both the Muslim and the Hindu King. The Muslims were actually hurt more than the Hindus.

Take for example the case of Aurangzeb-Shivaji conflict. Though, there wanst a decisive victor, but let us presume that Aurangzeb won. What happened thereafter. The Mughal Empire collapsed but the Maratha Empire survived.

Take another case that of Ahmed Shah Abdali and Maratha. Though Abdali won decisively but what happended later on. The Maratha Empire still survived(though their ambitions of all-India hegemony ended) for another 3/4th of a Century or so. But after Abdali, the Muslim sun in the subcontinent and the nearby region set for ever.

The reason is that these duels were not cake-walks for the Muslim Kings. They were hard fought battles. In the meantime, the Muslim king defeated the Hindu King, hiw own back-bone was broken beyond repairs. He used to suffer irrepairable loss of manpower and equipments and in no way remained capable to fight the other rising power i.e. the British.

History is not to be read. It is to be learnt. This whole hogwash of Hindu-Muslim should end. It will kill one and paralyse the another. The only way forward is Secularism and peaceful co-existence ,which all the communities must accept from their hearts and move on.

#275 MANTOLIVES


So ``Afghanistans.com`` is your source. I gave you a legal opinion. There is no way the Durand Line agreement can expire and if Afghans try to wrest control of it, they will see what we are capable of doing.

Your legal opinion does not mean anything to anybody except to you. The defendant cannot be the judge, my dear. It also does not matter who has said and when and to whom. The agreement stands on the paper and the it is the paper which speaks.

By any imaginable yardstick of international lawas and practices, the Durand Line Agreement has become null and void. It became so in 1947 itself but the good Afghans have continued it upto 1993. What else do you except from them? Is it that only you who undestand contracts and agreements and others are illiterate??

Comeon brother, leave this Musharaffism and stand on your own.

As far as we-will-show-them-what-is-what is concerned, to whom and whom are you going to show what and what with your eyes and false teeth,acquired from america.

Btw, lets drop the topic here as it is irrelevant to the thread. We will discuss it in detail in the proper forum. Till then, remain happy with your (il)legal position on Durand Line.

Bye for now on this topic.

Dear Salim / Tahmed Sahibs:

I am curious to find out whether Aurangzeb, in those days, had any information regarding how the Americans behaved domestically? For example, in today`s world there is some sort of universal expectation of behavior. Was there any expectation of behavior amongst different rulers of that time? I can understand that the Ottomans would know how the Safavid`s were ruling their own country, because they were neighbors. But frankly, did Aurangzeb know how the Americans were ruling their country?

{For example, at the time of Aurangzeb:

American Colonies were profiting through legal slavery.}

And the Arabs were the middle men. Correct?

{Ottoman Turks were taxing their Balkan Christian subjects by taking their male children, bringing them up as Muslims, and using them as soldiers against their own kind.}

What do you mean taxing? Do you mean abducting christian children?

{English Christians, under Cromwell, had just chopped off the head of their king, Charles I.
Elizabeth I had already chopped off the head of her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots.}

{The Protestant and Catholic Europeans had just fought a 30 year bloody religious war.
The Spanish Inquisition had been in full swing in Catholic Spain and the New World it controlled. }

{The native people of the Americas were nearing extermination in the South at the hands of the Spanish and Portuguese and their nightmare of English domination was just beginning. }

{Russian Czar Peter the Great was about to have his own son`s head chopped off.}

Ok, thanks for the info. Are we comparing the normal behavior of rulers of the day with that of Aurangzeb`s?

---

{Aurangzeb did not commit mass slaughter as some people in India and Pakistan who followed him centuries later - Yahya Khan, Indira Gandhi, BB, and Modi

Aurangzeb did destroy Hindu temples, but he also built them - unlike Indira Gandhi who destroyed the greatest Sikh temple.}

So why fast forward to the 20th century behavior?

{Aurangzeb did force many Hindus to convert to Islam. He even offered high office and military commissions to those who converted. He did not practice racist oppression and did not consider new arrivals from Persia or Central Asia to be superior to native Indians. Compare this to British rule that followed. The top positions were restricted to white Europeans. No white soldier could ever be under the command of an Indian. Anglo-Indians were given preference over the black Indians in government jobs. }

{Now, compare Aurangzeb to some prominent Pakistani leaders. } Yes, did Auranzeb use Binaca Tooth Paste to brush his teeth? I bet you Pakistani leaders are probably using Forhans for the Gums toothpaste.

{You have a problem with Babur`s drinking, but are quite content with Jinnah, Ayub, Yahya, and Bhutto`s fascination with that sweet nectar.} Babur was probably drinking 100% acid, wheras Yahya drank Chevez Regal. Do you know how expensive CR is? I know Bhutto`s favorite was the most expensive of all the rulers of Pakistan. I have no idea what Musharraf is drinking..probably scotch on the rocks.

{You talk about Humayun on drugs, but probably don`t think that Zia was on drugs when he meddled in Afghanistan, destroyed Karachi, installed Nizam-e-Mustapha, Hudood Laws, and public floggings.}

{He even imported Saudi Wahabbism and invented that awful ``Allah Hafiz`` phrase. If Zia was not on drugs he should have been.}

I agree with you on this ``Allah Hafiz`` stuff, and then they tell me it is ``haram`` to say ``Allah anything`` to a non-muslim. Go figure that one out.

Keep it going guys.

jang#306:

Your memory seems to be more vivid - I read the book over 20 years ago - so I will give you the benefit of doubt.

#311, Tahmed32,
Good job in mixing historical facts with the evolution of human rights, individual rights, and the Geneva Convention, not to mention the Kyoto Treaty, the League of Nations, and the National Symphony. :)
Dr. Alexander Sonofabitch was himself a great despot, not to mention Peter the ``Great,`` Catherine the (My queendom! my queendom for a horse!) ``Great,`` and other Russian medicine men healing the ``Sick Man of Europe.`` I think it was the Bolshevik physicians who really cured Czar St. Nicholas II and ended the misery of Romanoff tyranny and supplanted it with Communist ``freedom.`` If you consider the 15th century as the ``Age of Reason,`` then welcome to the world of Borgias and Medici, of popes having children and armies, and wars - now if that isn`t the ``Age of Priests,`` I don`t know what is - Fazloo would have fit right in with the 15th century crowd - Spanish Inquisition (yeah, the rights of men, women, and children), Spanish Conquistadores, expulsion of Jews and Muslims, forced conversion to Christianity. Yes, this preview of the glorious 15th century is brought to you courtesy of our own Ibn Khaldun, the great octogenarian, Mr. Tahmed, buttees wala. :)

Oh, yes the Divine Right of Kings! Henry VIII, another great 15th century king was as ``divine`` as they came - starting a new religion just to get divorced and remarried, then executing his wives for high treason - something even the Hindu kings never dared to do while they lived. In fact the great ``Sun King,`` Mr. ``L`etat c`est moi`` Louis XIV as late as the 18th century had no problem with ``Divine Right.`` Please don`t mix Runnymede, the Magna Carta, and the Balfour Declaration all in one breath. There were many despots along the way, many executions, and yes much suffering before the ``Age of Reason`` took hold in the 1990s, thanks to Bill Clinton - only to be dismantled by George Bush in 2003.

Wasn`t it the US Constitution that provided the worth of a black man as a metric and prevented female suffrage? Now that is an enlightened idea ahead of its time. :)

So, you have swallowed the Western culture, rights of man, white man`s burden, all of that in one gulp? Exploration, religious wars, colonialism, slavery, racism, laissez-faire capitalism, world wars, holocaust, partitioning, communism, secret intelligence, preemptive wars, eavesdropping, phone tapping, agent orange, and carpet bombing are all manifestations of core values of western civilization. I hope you have money left to invest in a bridge that I want to recommend in NYC. :)

You may put down the Kings, Maharajas, and Sultans of the past. You may say that Babur`s wars resulted in many deaths and a lot of suffering. May I then question the peaceful nature and compassion of your own Paki leaders of recent times - Yahya, Zia, Jinnah, and Bhutto? I think you were recently giving Ali1 high fives for Jinnah`s Pakistan. Sir, that egotist`s vanity cost over a million lives and tens of millions of uprooted lives. You have to go back to the two mustachioed geniuses, both contemporaries of his, to find any equals.
Please learn to see things in their proper perspective, instead of the usual jingoistic filter.

salim: (taking over the bat from jang as he takes a break)

On the the Ottoman Empire: while the symptoms of the sickness may have become apparent in the 19th century (early 19th it was when Dr. Alexander I of Russia identified the sickness), the roots lie in the fact that while the Age of Reason replaced the Age of Priests, and the Rights of Man replaced the Divine Right of Kings in europe starting around the 15th century, this never happened in the Ottoman Empire (or in India or anywhere outside Europe for that matter).

Even in the 20th century, Kemal pasha was only successful in applying a veneer of westernization leaving the core values of western civilization untouched - the turkish military has continued to stifle political development and the concept of the Rights of Man is of as low a value in Turkey as in Pakistan or Iran. While Suleiman may have been magnificent, he was also the absolute. Runnymede never happened in the Ottoman empire. The Bill of Rights (which became law of the land in england in 1689) became the law of the land in UK never happened in Turkey. While aurangzeb was busy chasing his tail in the deccan and while the ottomans were beginning to get a taste of things to come from Peter the Great, frenchmen were applying the guillotine to the descendants of the Sun King.

Look at things from the perspective of the Bill of Rights - and suddenly every goddamned Such and Such the Great of Such and Such the Magnificent turns out to be just another troglodyte on an ego trip. Babur may have been great, but what about the misery and deaths he caused to thousands and thousands of people?? Is that greatness?? the hell with such greatness. Same for the rest of these damned kings.

Done ranting and batting.

#309 marathas were offcourse very primitive in their military engineering, or any engineering for that matter..their capital fort in puna is an ugly mud-wall garhi, and no interesting architecture whatsoever.

its however ok to acknowledge, for whatever the reason (siege mentality, mongols, crusades, solar flares and meteor showers on uranus), two major extremely prosperous in treasury, medieval empires did skip the age of reason and their subjects remined frozen in time.

ok i am done batting to tahmed ;-)
(he can continue bashing aurangzeb).

#308, Jang,
Even the Mahrattas used French artillery experts - not that it did them any good at Panipat against Abdali`s Zamzama gun that Manto touches every day for good luck.

The `age of reason`` in the Islamic world came and went in the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. Thanks to Crusaders and Mongols, the Age of Reason was overtaken by the Age of Militarism - for survival`s sake.

#307 i think the beef if at all has to be with the lack of welcoming of the ``age of reason`` which seemed to have dawned on the western europe, not on humanitarian grounds. for example in aurangzebs army eruropean mercenary gunners were preferred (better rudimentary math and physics skills).

#290, Tahmed32 {``...over-rated in many ways: their dynastic successions with son attacking father or brother ... aurangzeb was clearly the most disastrous - alienated the hindus in the south; alienated and militarized the sikhs the way he did shivaji.

... the mughals came later, at a time the major muslim empire of the time (i.e. the ottomans, whom even the mughals acknowledged as their sovereign in theory if not in practice) was already in decline, and the ottoman`s headed to becoming the ``sick man of europe``.}

Sir,
You are incorrect in stating that the Ottoman Empire was already in decline when the Mughals came to India. In 1526, when Babur came to India, the Ottoman Empire was enjoying its zenith under the rule of the young Sultan, Suleyman the Magnificent (Suleiman Kanuni), who ruled from 1520 to 1566. The decline did not set in until the 18th century after the Ottoman defeats at the hands of the Austrians and the Russians. The ``Sick Man of Europe`` syndrome did not arise until the 19th century. Curiously, the Ottoman Empire outlasted its bitter enemies the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs by a few years, and its other enemy, the Safavids of Persia, by two centuries. It even survived the demise of its friends, the Mughals of India and the French Bourbons by many, many years. Stop worrying about the ``Sick Man of Europe.`` That man is long dead and reincarnated as the modern Turkish Republic, thanks to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who had the foresight to remove Islamic rule. I think you should restrict your concern to the dying terminal case of the ``Sick Man of South Asia.``

While your understanding of world history is bizarre enough, your Monday morning quarterbacking with perfect 20/20 hindsight is amazing, as you pontificate on the many evils of Aurangzeb. Maybe, you should try to be a little fair and compare Aurangzeb to his contemporaries. For example, at the time of Aurangzeb:

American Colonies were profiting through legal slavery.
Ottoman Turks were taxing their Balkan Christian subjects by taking their male children, bringing them up as Muslims, and using them as soldiers against their own kind.
English Christians, under Cromwell, had just chopped off the head of their king, Charles I.
Elizabeth I had already chopped off the head of her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots.
The Protestant and Catholic Europeans had just fought a 30 year bloody religious war.
The Spanish Inquisition had been in full swing in Catholic Spain and the New World it controlled.
The native people of the Americas were nearing extermination in the South at the hands of the Spanish and Portuguese and their nightmare of English domination was just beginning.
Russian Czar Peter the Great was about to have his own son`s head chopped off.

Aurangzeb did not commit mass slaughter as some people in India and Pakistan who followed him centuries later - Yahya Khan, Indira Gandhi, BB, and Modi
Aurangzeb did destroy Hindu temples, but he also built them - unlike Indira Gandhi who destroyed the greatest Sikh temple.
Aurangzeb did force many Hindus to convert to Islam. He even offered high office and military commissions to those who converted. He did not practice racist oppression and did not consider new arrivals from Persia or Central Asia to be superior to native Indians. Compare this to British rule that followed. The top positions were restricted to white Europeans. No white soldier could ever be under the command of an Indian. Anglo-Indians were given preference over the black Indians in government jobs.
Now, compare Aurangzeb to some prominent Pakistani leaders. You have a problem with Babur`s drinking, but are quite content with Jinnah, Ayub, Yahya, and Bhutto`s fascination with that sweet nectar. You talk about Humayun on drugs, but probably don`t think that Zia was on drugs when he meddled in Afghanistan, destroyed Karachi, installed Nizam-e-Mustapha, Hudood Laws, and public floggings. He even imported Saudi Wahabbism and invented that awful ``Allah Hafiz`` phrase. If Zia was not on drugs he should have been.

DM saab,
what i recall is raja rajrup of jammu hills offered to raise a cavalry of rajputs for dara on the run. i guess dara must have been a little suspicious ..nadira begum his invited the raja to her harem, and gave him pearls. then she proceeded to wash her breast (since she was not lactating then) and offered the water as a drink thereby making the raja a son. a million rupees were also given just as a token gesture of parental affection ;-)

i dont know that the rajas wife had breast-fed aurangzeb, that would mean that she belonged to the mughal harem.

salim, dont be shy, feel absolutely free to support LeT or Tally Ban or IRA or LTTE, no tenuous justification (look shishapa likes sivaji) is necessary ;-).. go with your heart.

SN i dont a `good` book. i recently got the IV standard book after laine controvesy, but that i suspect is not the best..

Re # 304

Dullabhatti,

Do not why but my guess would, Shivaji was not limited against Aurangzeb, he had
impact on Maharashtra, to the south, to some extent North (Bundelkhand etc.).
The seed he planted eventually did become big, morphed into Maratha rule or
influence over lot of India, like Peshwas going upto Attock, fighting with Abdali,
with British, 1857 war/uprising/freedom struggle, and I would to upto Indian freedom sturggle.