Shivaji -- Portrait of the King as Barbarian
Kedar Joshi January 5, 2006
#336 Posted by contacheeno on June 22, 2007 4:09:18 pm
It is point that needs to be thought, yes indeed if the gita says that u should do your job even though imperfectly, rather doing some one elses job perfectly, then that would make Shivaji irreligious, according to their own doctrines, what i would like mention at this point of debate is why is Shivaji called the King of Maharashtra? or was it that time Maharashtra, Maharashtra came into existence after independence. and as far as i am concerned Shivaji was no where gutsy enough to enter the areas of Marathwada right upto parbhani or vidharba right upto gadchiroli, he was merely roaming the western maharashtra(not fully) and Kokan, places which suited his combat of guirella warfare, fair enough. But for heavens sake dont name his as King of Maharashtra, he was a small time ruler, who still ended up paying the main rulers the mughals their dues and even requested them many times to entitle him with the tag ``Raja``. he was a ruler in his own right. but if you compare him to the Mughal Emperor, the difference would be as vast as comparing a local corporator or at the most a MLA to the Prime Minister of India, they both are publically chosen agreed, but then there is a vast difference, same was the case if u compare Shivaji or any Mughal Emperor. The whole thing of presenting Shivaji as a Hindu king or Mughals as Muslim rulers is purely waste of time and energy (as far as i am concerned) because i see the tussle between these two merely for power,land,wealth,increase of stature in society. nothing related to religion. Lets us sit back and count how many religious monuments were funded by Shivaji or what did he do to spread Hindu religion outside India? nothing absolutely nothing he was way too busy fighting wars, winning and losing lands.plotting schemes against his own brother Vyankoji Bhonsale by shaking hands with Muslim rulers (now what did suddenly happen to this so called Hindu King?) because does Hindu religion allows you to fight and kill your own real brother (for god`s sake dont mention Pandavas and Kauravas and the MYTH, it is just a Myth no proven records for same are found) so was the case with the Mughal rulers, their sons fought them, and sons imprisoned fathers, AN idiot like Akbar could go on and establish his own religion when he has nothing better to do. so Please dont label them as a Hindu King and Muslim ruler, they were power thisty rulers and nothing else. I am certainly not inspired by them as many of my generation are, because i dont beleive in snatching something which belongs to some one already, not would i attack my own brother for land money and power even though he is my half brother, and certainly not imprison my father for being a King.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#334 Posted by PHOENIX on January 22, 2006 11:15:41 pm
CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ IS ONE OF THE MOST REVERED AND LOVED PERSONALITIES AMONGST THE PEOPLE OF MAHARASHTRA, EVEN TODAY. HE ESTABLISHED THE `HINDAVI SWARAJYA`, NEARLY 400 YEARS AGO, WHICH WAS REPLACED BY THE MARATHA EMPIRE, RUN BY THE PESHWA (PRIME MINISTER). THUS, `HINDAVI SWARAJYA` BECAME PESHWAI, YET THE LOVE AND REVERENCE FOR THE CHHATRAPATI REMAINS THE SAME TODAY. AS A MAHARASHTRIAN, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY:
#1 MAHARASHTRA, DURING SHIVAJI`S TIME WAS RULED BY THREE MAIN POWERS: THE ADILSHAHI OF BIJAPUR, THE NIZAMSHAHI OF AHMADNAGAR AND THE QUTUBSHAHI OF GOLCONDA. THESE POWERS RULED MAHARASHTRA BY FEUDAL SYSTEM i.e. JAGIRS (FIEFS) WERE CONTROLLED BY JAGIRDARS, WHO WERE MOSTLY HINDU MARATHA SARDARS. THEY CARED MORE ABOUT THEIR PLACE IN THE COURTS OF THESE KINGDOMS THAN THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IN THEIR LANDS. SHIVAJI MAHARAJ ESTABLISHED THE `HINDAVI SWARAJ` TO BRING ABOUT A CENTRALISED ADMINISTRATION, THUS ENDING THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.
#2 CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ ESTABLISHED THE `HINDAVI SWARAJYA` (SELF-RULED STATE OF HINDUS:- A VERY LOOSE TRANSLATION), YET THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE SHOWING THAT SHIVAJI MAHARAJ WAS AGAINST ANY RELIGION. HE WAS A STATESMAN, HE PICKED PEOPLE BY QUALITIES, RATHER THAN BY BIRTH. IN FACT, SHIVAJI`S PRIDE, HIS NAVY EMPLOYED A VAST CHUNK OF KOKANASTHA (FROM OR OF KONKAN) MUSLIMS. HIS ARMY CONSISTED OF A FAIR SIZE OF MUSLIMS. HIS FIRST ENEMIES WERE HINDU MARATHA SARDARS. WHEN CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ ESCAPED FROM HIS AGRA IMPRISONMENT, IT WAS MADARI MEHETER, ONE OF SHIVAJI MAHARAJA`S BODYGUARDS, THAT RETURNED THE PRECIOUS SHIV-LING, THAT SHIVAJI MAHARAJ HAD FORGOTTEN. HE HAD WON THE HEARTS AND LOVE OF MUSLIMS, ALSO!
#3 CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ UNITED THE DIFFERENT REGIONS OF MAHARASHTRA, UNDER ONE RULE. MAHARASHTRA IS DIVIDED INTO THE FOLLOWING REGIONS:- KONKAN, MARATHWADA, WESTERN MAHARASHTRA (GHAT) AND VIDHARBHA. THOUGH EACH REGION HAS A SEPARATE IDENTITY, THEY WERE UNITED UNDER THE SAME OCHRE BANNER ( NOW USED BY THE SHIV-SENA).
#4 CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ HAD A PROFOUND RESPECT FOR WOMEN, A SENSE INCULCATED, FROM BIRTH BY HIS MOTHER, JIJABAI (WHO IS MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS MAASAHEB). HE USED TO `AWARD` THE MOST STRINGEST PUNISHMENTS TO THOSE WHO MOLESTED A WOMAN. THE CHHATRAPATI DID NOT EVEN SPARE HIS OWN SON!
HE USED TO REGARD WOMEN (EXCEPT HIS WIVES) AS EQUIVALENT TO HIS MOTHER AND SISTER. HE USED TO TREAT THEM IN THAT RESPECT, IN WORDS AND COMMITMENT. HE NEVER FAILED TO PUNISH EVEN THE HIGHEST RANKED OFFICER IF THEY SHOWED ANY DISRESPECT TOWARDS ANY WOMAN.
#5 CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ ESTABLISHED A KINGDOM, WITH A HANDFUL MEN, AT THE AGE OF SIXTEEN. AS A RESULT, HE VALUED HIS PEOPLE THE MOST. HE USED TO FEEL DEEPLY, WHEN ANY OF HIS PEOPLE WOULD GET KILLED DURING WAR. HE NEVER FAILED TO GLORIFY HIS MEN. THE LEGENDS LIKE TANAJI MALUSARE, BAJI PRABHU DESHPANDE, FIRANGOJI NARSALA, MURARBAJI, TO NAME A FEW ARE ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE MORE SKILLFUL THAN CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ HIMSELF.
HE NAMED THE GHODKHIND PASS AS THE PAVAN (PURE) KHIND, WHEN BAJI DIED FIGHTING, TRYING TO SAVE SHIVAJI`S LIFE. HIS UTTERANCE OF THE WORDS, ``THE FORT IS CAPTURED, BUT THE LION IS DEAD.`` WHEN TANAJI MALUSARE DIED, WHEN TRYING TO CAPTURE A FORT, IN THE MIDST OF THE PREPARATIONS OF HIS SON`S WEDDING SHOWS HIS PROFOUND GRIEF.
#6 HIS MILITARY GENIUS IS TO BE AWED. HE USED TO ROUT HUGE (COMPARED TO HIS FEW HUNDREDS, AN ARMY 50,000-STRONG CAN BE SAID TO BE HUGE) ENEMY ARMIES IN A MATTER OF DAYS, WITH LEAST MINIMAL LOSSES ON HIS SIDE, USING SUPERB GUERILLA TACTICS AND THAT, WITHOUT MUCH FIREARMS. HE ESTABLISHED HIS NAVY, BY DESIGNING HIS OWN WAR-SHIPS. HIS HEALTH ALONE STOPPED HIM FROM MAKING ANY SEA CONQUESTS, HIMSELF.
#7 SHIVAJI MAHARAJ IS LOVED FOR HIS STRENGTHS AS WELL AS HIS WEAKNESSES. HIS STATE OF DEPRESSION AND A LACK OF ADEQUATE PUNISHMENT TO HIS SON, SAMBHAJI, WHEN HE JOINED THE MUGHALS IS WELL KNOWN. HE HAD LITTLE TIME FOR HIS FAMILLY. HE TRIED TO BALANCE HIS LIFE AS A RULER AND AS A FAMILY MAN.
SWAMI RAMDAS ONCE SAID OF SHIVAJI MAHARAJ, THAT HE WAS A `SHRIMAN YOGI` - A PERSON WHO WORKS FOR THE WELFARE OF THE WORLD, YET IS UNDER THE EVERYDAY CONSTRAINTS OF A FAMILY MAN.
#8 THE GREATEST SIGN OF A MAN`S EXISTENCE IS HOW HIS PEOPLE CARRY HIS IDEALS FORWARD, AFTER HIS DEATH. CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ`S UNTIMELY DEATH, PLUNGED THE FLEDGLING MARATHA KINGDOM INTO TOTAL CONFUSION. WITH THE MURDER OF SAMBHAJI, NO DEFINITE LEADER, AND THE MUGHAL EMPEROR, HIMSELF, LEADING THE WHOLE OF THE ONE MILLION-STRONG MUGHAL ARMY, WITH ALL AVAILABLE RESOURCES, THE SOLE INSPIRATION FOR THE LONE MARATHA WAS CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJA`S AMBITION AND THE LOVE FOR HIS PEOPLE, THAT LED HIM TO CARVE OUT A SEPARATE IDENTITY FOR HIS PEOPLE, PRIMARILY IN THEIR OWN HEARTS, THEN A PERMANENT PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA. AFTER TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF FIGHTING, THE NEW MARATHA EMPIRE WAS BORN.
CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJA`S TALES ARE A PART OF THE LOCAL FOLKLORE. IN VILLAGES, EVEN TODAY, SONGS, PLAYS AND STORIES ARE POPULAR. I FEEL THE HUMBLEST WHENEVER I THINK OF THE LEGEND, HIS PERSONA.
#1 MAHARASHTRA, DURING SHIVAJI`S TIME WAS RULED BY THREE MAIN POWERS: THE ADILSHAHI OF BIJAPUR, THE NIZAMSHAHI OF AHMADNAGAR AND THE QUTUBSHAHI OF GOLCONDA. THESE POWERS RULED MAHARASHTRA BY FEUDAL SYSTEM i.e. JAGIRS (FIEFS) WERE CONTROLLED BY JAGIRDARS, WHO WERE MOSTLY HINDU MARATHA SARDARS. THEY CARED MORE ABOUT THEIR PLACE IN THE COURTS OF THESE KINGDOMS THAN THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IN THEIR LANDS. SHIVAJI MAHARAJ ESTABLISHED THE `HINDAVI SWARAJ` TO BRING ABOUT A CENTRALISED ADMINISTRATION, THUS ENDING THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.
#2 CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ ESTABLISHED THE `HINDAVI SWARAJYA` (SELF-RULED STATE OF HINDUS:- A VERY LOOSE TRANSLATION), YET THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE SHOWING THAT SHIVAJI MAHARAJ WAS AGAINST ANY RELIGION. HE WAS A STATESMAN, HE PICKED PEOPLE BY QUALITIES, RATHER THAN BY BIRTH. IN FACT, SHIVAJI`S PRIDE, HIS NAVY EMPLOYED A VAST CHUNK OF KOKANASTHA (FROM OR OF KONKAN) MUSLIMS. HIS ARMY CONSISTED OF A FAIR SIZE OF MUSLIMS. HIS FIRST ENEMIES WERE HINDU MARATHA SARDARS. WHEN CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ ESCAPED FROM HIS AGRA IMPRISONMENT, IT WAS MADARI MEHETER, ONE OF SHIVAJI MAHARAJA`S BODYGUARDS, THAT RETURNED THE PRECIOUS SHIV-LING, THAT SHIVAJI MAHARAJ HAD FORGOTTEN. HE HAD WON THE HEARTS AND LOVE OF MUSLIMS, ALSO!
#3 CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ UNITED THE DIFFERENT REGIONS OF MAHARASHTRA, UNDER ONE RULE. MAHARASHTRA IS DIVIDED INTO THE FOLLOWING REGIONS:- KONKAN, MARATHWADA, WESTERN MAHARASHTRA (GHAT) AND VIDHARBHA. THOUGH EACH REGION HAS A SEPARATE IDENTITY, THEY WERE UNITED UNDER THE SAME OCHRE BANNER ( NOW USED BY THE SHIV-SENA).
#4 CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ HAD A PROFOUND RESPECT FOR WOMEN, A SENSE INCULCATED, FROM BIRTH BY HIS MOTHER, JIJABAI (WHO IS MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS MAASAHEB). HE USED TO `AWARD` THE MOST STRINGEST PUNISHMENTS TO THOSE WHO MOLESTED A WOMAN. THE CHHATRAPATI DID NOT EVEN SPARE HIS OWN SON!
HE USED TO REGARD WOMEN (EXCEPT HIS WIVES) AS EQUIVALENT TO HIS MOTHER AND SISTER. HE USED TO TREAT THEM IN THAT RESPECT, IN WORDS AND COMMITMENT. HE NEVER FAILED TO PUNISH EVEN THE HIGHEST RANKED OFFICER IF THEY SHOWED ANY DISRESPECT TOWARDS ANY WOMAN.
#5 CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ ESTABLISHED A KINGDOM, WITH A HANDFUL MEN, AT THE AGE OF SIXTEEN. AS A RESULT, HE VALUED HIS PEOPLE THE MOST. HE USED TO FEEL DEEPLY, WHEN ANY OF HIS PEOPLE WOULD GET KILLED DURING WAR. HE NEVER FAILED TO GLORIFY HIS MEN. THE LEGENDS LIKE TANAJI MALUSARE, BAJI PRABHU DESHPANDE, FIRANGOJI NARSALA, MURARBAJI, TO NAME A FEW ARE ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE MORE SKILLFUL THAN CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ HIMSELF.
HE NAMED THE GHODKHIND PASS AS THE PAVAN (PURE) KHIND, WHEN BAJI DIED FIGHTING, TRYING TO SAVE SHIVAJI`S LIFE. HIS UTTERANCE OF THE WORDS, ``THE FORT IS CAPTURED, BUT THE LION IS DEAD.`` WHEN TANAJI MALUSARE DIED, WHEN TRYING TO CAPTURE A FORT, IN THE MIDST OF THE PREPARATIONS OF HIS SON`S WEDDING SHOWS HIS PROFOUND GRIEF.
#6 HIS MILITARY GENIUS IS TO BE AWED. HE USED TO ROUT HUGE (COMPARED TO HIS FEW HUNDREDS, AN ARMY 50,000-STRONG CAN BE SAID TO BE HUGE) ENEMY ARMIES IN A MATTER OF DAYS, WITH LEAST MINIMAL LOSSES ON HIS SIDE, USING SUPERB GUERILLA TACTICS AND THAT, WITHOUT MUCH FIREARMS. HE ESTABLISHED HIS NAVY, BY DESIGNING HIS OWN WAR-SHIPS. HIS HEALTH ALONE STOPPED HIM FROM MAKING ANY SEA CONQUESTS, HIMSELF.
#7 SHIVAJI MAHARAJ IS LOVED FOR HIS STRENGTHS AS WELL AS HIS WEAKNESSES. HIS STATE OF DEPRESSION AND A LACK OF ADEQUATE PUNISHMENT TO HIS SON, SAMBHAJI, WHEN HE JOINED THE MUGHALS IS WELL KNOWN. HE HAD LITTLE TIME FOR HIS FAMILLY. HE TRIED TO BALANCE HIS LIFE AS A RULER AND AS A FAMILY MAN.
SWAMI RAMDAS ONCE SAID OF SHIVAJI MAHARAJ, THAT HE WAS A `SHRIMAN YOGI` - A PERSON WHO WORKS FOR THE WELFARE OF THE WORLD, YET IS UNDER THE EVERYDAY CONSTRAINTS OF A FAMILY MAN.
#8 THE GREATEST SIGN OF A MAN`S EXISTENCE IS HOW HIS PEOPLE CARRY HIS IDEALS FORWARD, AFTER HIS DEATH. CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ`S UNTIMELY DEATH, PLUNGED THE FLEDGLING MARATHA KINGDOM INTO TOTAL CONFUSION. WITH THE MURDER OF SAMBHAJI, NO DEFINITE LEADER, AND THE MUGHAL EMPEROR, HIMSELF, LEADING THE WHOLE OF THE ONE MILLION-STRONG MUGHAL ARMY, WITH ALL AVAILABLE RESOURCES, THE SOLE INSPIRATION FOR THE LONE MARATHA WAS CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJA`S AMBITION AND THE LOVE FOR HIS PEOPLE, THAT LED HIM TO CARVE OUT A SEPARATE IDENTITY FOR HIS PEOPLE, PRIMARILY IN THEIR OWN HEARTS, THEN A PERMANENT PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA. AFTER TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF FIGHTING, THE NEW MARATHA EMPIRE WAS BORN.
CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJA`S TALES ARE A PART OF THE LOCAL FOLKLORE. IN VILLAGES, EVEN TODAY, SONGS, PLAYS AND STORIES ARE POPULAR. I FEEL THE HUMBLEST WHENEVER I THINK OF THE LEGEND, HIS PERSONA.
#333 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 17, 2006 4:37:22 am
baap ney mari maindaki,
aur beta teerandaaz
,
#331 Posted by MantoLives on January 15, 2006 11:15:58 pm
I knew that you could not take a counter-argument for all your claims of ``Indian democracy``
#329 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 14, 2006 8:55:49 pm
#327
You are right. But it is still a long way to go people start looking each other as Humans or Insaans.
Till such time even if we can become Good-to-others Hindus, Good-to-others Muslims, Good-to-others Christians etc., it will be a big deal.
You are right. But it is still a long way to go people start looking each other as Humans or Insaans.
Till such time even if we can become Good-to-others Hindus, Good-to-others Muslims, Good-to-others Christians etc., it will be a big deal.
#328 Posted by guru on January 13, 2006 11:10:20 am
Nishchaya-cha MahaMeru == Man with Himalayan Determination
Bahut Janaasi Adharu == Who Empowered Multitude
Janata Raja! == Wise Leader
.-
Sant Swami Samarth Raamdas (bramhin by birth)
You will see this witing on Pune Airport, Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus and Airport in Mumbai. The reasons for this depiction
by a saintly sanyasi are plenty.
Shivaji`s social contributions are tremendous, eg,
Bahut Janaasi Adharu == Who Empowered Multitude
Janata Raja! == Wise Leader
.-
Sant Swami Samarth Raamdas (bramhin by birth)
You will see this witing on Pune Airport, Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus and Airport in Mumbai. The reasons for this depiction
by a saintly sanyasi are plenty.
Shivaji`s social contributions are tremendous, eg,
- caste divisions are minimal in Maharashtra compared to rest of India - so you see
- Dalit Shushilkumar Shinde as Chief Minister in 90s and also few dalit deputy chief ministers from 70s,
- Ambedkar`s education sponsored by Maratha sardar Sayaji and Chatrapati Shahu,
- Satya Shodhak Samaaj established in 19th century for removing caste division and education of lower castes and women.
- Muslim minority is more integrated compared to rest of India . You see
- Muslim Antulay can be a Chief Minister in mid seventies,
- Muslim Satya Shodhak Samaaj of Dalwai,
- Chatrapati Shahu Maharaj Kolhapur descendent of Shivaji, a Sanskrit scholar establishing hostels for Muslims in 1910s so that they attend highschools and colleges,
- Shivaji was against feudalism. He never gave watans (land titles) to his Sardars or Army officials. Watangiri the way it was practiced by Rajputs, Mughals, southern Muslim kingdoms and later by British made large portion of masses kandless. That is why cooperative movement cpuld happen in Mqaharashtra, atleast in western , central part of it. Cooperative movement has made tremendous dent in rural poverty in Maharashtra. There is some parallel to west Punjab because of Khalsa of Gurugovindsingh.
- Treatment of women is much better in Shivaki`s rule - he was a Mama`s boy, episode such as daughter-in-law of Kalyan`s Subhedar, cutting of legs of a Patil who molested a girl
#327 Posted by tahmed32 on January 13, 2006 6:53:58 am
bolta aina: Your sentiments are good. However, in calling for ``muslim (hindu etc.) ho to aisa ho``, you are still speaking from within the ``religion box``. Why not ``insaan ho to aisa ho``??
We need to stop putting brand names on people like hindu/muslim, kala/gora, pakistani/ indian, single-headed/double-headed (OK, scratch the last one, I just go carried away) and start looking at them as generic human beings.
Notice how closely the term ``muslim ho to aisa ho`` sounds like something you would hear with a jingle during the commercial break??If we can see through the ``brand name`` advertizing in drugs, why do we have so much difficulty in seeing through the ``brand name`` advertizing for people??
We need to stop putting brand names on people like hindu/muslim, kala/gora, pakistani/ indian, single-headed/double-headed (OK, scratch the last one, I just go carried away) and start looking at them as generic human beings.
Notice how closely the term ``muslim ho to aisa ho`` sounds like something you would hear with a jingle during the commercial break??If we can see through the ``brand name`` advertizing in drugs, why do we have so much difficulty in seeing through the ``brand name`` advertizing for people??
#326 Posted by MantoLives on January 13, 2006 1:26:01 am
My dear friend,
Durand Line agreement between the British Empire and the Afghan Kingdom constitutes an international treaty agreement and Article 62 of the Vienna Convention applies to it. Please feel free to produce a legal opinion contrary to this by any jurist who has considered the matter.
The only Musharrafism I see here is yours... that is given your definition of Musharrafism.
#325 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 13, 2006 12:57:06 am
#324 MANTOLIVES
I do not wish to discuss the matter further thats one thing.
By ``Musharaffism``, I dont mean illegality of something. By ``Musharaffism``, I mean whatever-I-have-said-is right attitude. If you watch any interview of Musharaff, he works on this principle only. Whatever-I-am-saying-is-right-rest-everything-is-false.
Now you have brought Vienna Convention into picture without ascertaining whether it is applicable to a treaty signed in 1893. First of all it is not applicable. Article-4 clearly states that the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States..
Further, Vienna Convention amply describes what is termed as a ``treaty`` and which laws and practices govern a treaty as defined in Vienna Convention, which you are completely ignoring.
Article-62 which you are so fond of quoting again and agian will be applicable if and only if the Durand Line Agreement meets the definition of ``Treaty`` as defined in Vienna Convention, otherwise not.
I am closing the chapter here. Please dont reply to this post. I`ll not be responding.
I do not wish to discuss the matter further thats one thing.
By ``Musharaffism``, I dont mean illegality of something. By ``Musharaffism``, I mean whatever-I-have-said-is right attitude. If you watch any interview of Musharaff, he works on this principle only. Whatever-I-am-saying-is-right-rest-everything-is-false.
Now you have brought Vienna Convention into picture without ascertaining whether it is applicable to a treaty signed in 1893. First of all it is not applicable. Article-4 clearly states that the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States..
Further, Vienna Convention amply describes what is termed as a ``treaty`` and which laws and practices govern a treaty as defined in Vienna Convention, which you are completely ignoring.
Article-62 which you are so fond of quoting again and agian will be applicable if and only if the Durand Line Agreement meets the definition of ``Treaty`` as defined in Vienna Convention, otherwise not.
I am closing the chapter here. Please dont reply to this post. I`ll not be responding.
#324 Posted by MantoLives on January 12, 2006 9:53:55 pm
Bolta Aina,
Looks like you have never read a single law book in your life let alone know anything about international law. You don`t understand legal language and you choose to abuse me with terms like ``Musharrafism``... I take Musharrafism to mean illegality which is the basis of your entire bankrupt argument.
The Article 62 of the Vienna Convention (which means that a successor state inherits territorial obligations and rights of the preceding state).. protects the sanctity of the Durand Line.... whether you like it or not... or else why don`t you use your good offices to advocate the contrary to the Afghan Government... Pakistan accepts the ICJ jurisdiction... surely Afghanistan would have taken up the matter there had it thought it to be wise...
Please bring an opinion contrary to this by any jurist, lawyer or judge .... On another note- please note how easily the ``United Hindustan`` advocates are ready to barter away NWFP to Afghanistan... same old Gandhian hypocrisy.
Looks like you have never read a single law book in your life let alone know anything about international law. You don`t understand legal language and you choose to abuse me with terms like ``Musharrafism``... I take Musharrafism to mean illegality which is the basis of your entire bankrupt argument.
The Article 62 of the Vienna Convention (which means that a successor state inherits territorial obligations and rights of the preceding state).. protects the sanctity of the Durand Line.... whether you like it or not... or else why don`t you use your good offices to advocate the contrary to the Afghan Government... Pakistan accepts the ICJ jurisdiction... surely Afghanistan would have taken up the matter there had it thought it to be wise...
Please bring an opinion contrary to this by any jurist, lawyer or judge .... On another note- please note how easily the ``United Hindustan`` advocates are ready to barter away NWFP to Afghanistan... same old Gandhian hypocrisy.
#323 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 12, 2006 8:38:21 pm
#321 SALIM BHAI/ TAHMED SAHIB/OTHERS
It is high time that we break our shells and come out free. ``Holier than Thou`` attitude should be abandoned. it is still premature for us to leave religions but Let us try to become role models for each others. Let us individually try to become something that others say ``Muslim ho to aisa`` or ``Hindu ho to aisa`` or ``Sikh ho to aisa``.
Its not a big deal deal. A small amount of honesty, integrity ,humanity and brotherhood will do.
It is high time that we break our shells and come out free. ``Holier than Thou`` attitude should be abandoned. it is still premature for us to leave religions but Let us try to become role models for each others. Let us individually try to become something that others say ``Muslim ho to aisa`` or ``Hindu ho to aisa`` or ``Sikh ho to aisa``.
Its not a big deal deal. A small amount of honesty, integrity ,humanity and brotherhood will do.
#322 Posted by tahmed32 on January 12, 2006 3:19:39 pm
#321 on that good note... #32 wishes ``hindu, muslim, sikh, eesaee, sub ko mera salaam`` :-)
#321 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 12, 2006 11:40:28 am
#320, Tahmed32 {``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)``}
Tahmed Sahib the Great :)
Couldn`t agree more. Thanks for finally getting us to what is important - The welfare of man (and woman :) )
Tahmed Sahib the Great :)
Couldn`t agree more. Thanks for finally getting us to what is important - The welfare of man (and woman :) )
#320 Posted by tahmed32 on January 12, 2006 10:44:46 am
#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.
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.
#319 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 12, 2006 9:35:34 am
#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.
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.
#318 Posted by tahmed32 on January 12, 2006 8:47:02 am
#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!!
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!!
#317 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 12, 2006 8:03:16 am
#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,
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,
#316 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 12, 2006 2:25:14 am
#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.
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.
#315 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 12, 2006 2:05:46 am
#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.
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.
#314 Posted by Behram1 on January 11, 2006 5:32:09 pm
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.
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.
#313 Posted by dost_mittar on January 11, 2006 2:06:52 pm
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.
Your memory seems to be more vivid - I read the book over 20 years ago - so I will give you the benefit of doubt.
#312 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 11, 2006 12:36:05 pm
#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.
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.
#311 Posted by tahmed32 on January 11, 2006 11:37:07 am
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.
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.
#310 Posted by jang on January 11, 2006 11:02:51 am
#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).
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).
#309 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 11, 2006 9:57:45 am
#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.
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.
#308 Posted by jang on January 11, 2006 9:48:27 am
#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).
#307 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 11, 2006 8:47:23 am
#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.
... 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.
#306 Posted by jang on January 11, 2006 5:27:21 am
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..
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..
#305 Posted by shishapa on January 10, 2006 9:11:01 pm
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.
#304 Posted by dullabhatti on January 10, 2006 8:44:12 pm
don`t understand why Shivaji can`t be considered a local hero only for revolting against Aurangzeb....while in Punjab we have Dullabhatti praised and considered a local hero for standing upto Akbar - a much bening ruler than Aurangzeb.
#303 Posted by tahmed32 on January 10, 2006 8:22:47 pm
another typo in #301: That of course should be Louis XVI, not XIV. sorry for the typos.
#302 Posted by tahmed32 on January 10, 2006 8:14:11 pm
the last line of the first para. below, instead of reading ``while their economy switched to industrialization. `` should read, ``while their broader economy remained in the pre-industrial mode (where even watches were basically unheard of, per european visitors)``.
#301 Posted by tahmed32 on January 10, 2006 8:11:38 pm
The one from those times who most impresses me is Tipu Sultan. Not because of his martial achievements, for which he is no doubt rightly remembered. But for his broader vision for economic progress. In this regard he stands apart from virtually every other Indian ruler, none of whom really understood the economic transformation that had occurred in the west. Indeed, even outside India, the mighty Ottomans, nominal heads to the entire muslim world, never understood this - they focussed only on switching their military to the western model, while their economy switched to industrialization.
Tipu, on the other hand, took a broader view - and his envoys to the court of Louis the XIV just before the french revolution returned to India not just with military technology but with plants and plant seeds, watches, and even some french academicians. He then set up factories and agricultural research facilities within his kingdom. Had Tipu been allowed to live in peace, there is every reason that he would have south india (and later by example the rest of India) at par with european states economically in the same manner the japanese were to do under the Meiji Restoration a hundred years later. Cornwallis - who had recently been soundly thrashed at Yorktown by the americans and managed to then sneak in for a second career in india - probably realized this too, and so gave high priority to destroying Tipu Sultan.
The Marhattas who along with the Nizam of Hyderabad, allied with Cornwallis to do this truly evil deed - since Tipu`s success could well have meant that south india and by example the rest of the subcontinent could well have been among the most advanced nations today. So, it was not just ``jafar az bengal, sadiq az deccan, nang-e-adam, nange-deen, nang-e-watan`` as the poet wrote, but the Nizam of Hyderabad and the marhattas as well.
Of course, this is speculation only (of whether Tipu could have done for India what the Meiji Restoration did for Japan) - and I would be interested in the views of others more familiar with the saga of Tipu Sultan and what he accomplished in South India economically.
Tipu, on the other hand, took a broader view - and his envoys to the court of Louis the XIV just before the french revolution returned to India not just with military technology but with plants and plant seeds, watches, and even some french academicians. He then set up factories and agricultural research facilities within his kingdom. Had Tipu been allowed to live in peace, there is every reason that he would have south india (and later by example the rest of India) at par with european states economically in the same manner the japanese were to do under the Meiji Restoration a hundred years later. Cornwallis - who had recently been soundly thrashed at Yorktown by the americans and managed to then sneak in for a second career in india - probably realized this too, and so gave high priority to destroying Tipu Sultan.
The Marhattas who along with the Nizam of Hyderabad, allied with Cornwallis to do this truly evil deed - since Tipu`s success could well have meant that south india and by example the rest of the subcontinent could well have been among the most advanced nations today. So, it was not just ``jafar az bengal, sadiq az deccan, nang-e-adam, nange-deen, nang-e-watan`` as the poet wrote, but the Nizam of Hyderabad and the marhattas as well.
Of course, this is speculation only (of whether Tipu could have done for India what the Meiji Restoration did for Japan) - and I would be interested in the views of others more familiar with the saga of Tipu Sultan and what he accomplished in South India economically.
#300 Posted by SN on January 10, 2006 5:53:57 pm
Jang
Oh.. But i`ve read the ``Peacock Throne``. Thanks, anyway.
Any good book on Shivaji?
SN
Oh.. But i`ve read the ``Peacock Throne``. Thanks, anyway.
Any good book on Shivaji?
SN
#299 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 10, 2006 1:49:26 pm
Shishapa #296, {``The story I grew up with is
Afzal Khan being such a huge man compared to Shivaji, was planning to crush
Shivaji during their meet. So Shivaji was prepared with tiger claw and when Afzal Khan
hugged Shivaji when they met, just that happened and Shivaji used tiger claws to rip open
Afzal Khan`s intestine.
Sounds gruesome but I guess that is how wars are. Not for feeble minded.``}
Shishapa Bhai,
Sure sounds like an insidious terrorist to me. :) It`s all in the eye of the beholder.
Afzal Khan being such a huge man compared to Shivaji, was planning to crush
Shivaji during their meet. So Shivaji was prepared with tiger claw and when Afzal Khan
hugged Shivaji when they met, just that happened and Shivaji used tiger claws to rip open
Afzal Khan`s intestine.
Sounds gruesome but I guess that is how wars are. Not for feeble minded.``}
Shishapa Bhai,
Sure sounds like an insidious terrorist to me. :) It`s all in the eye of the beholder.
#298 Posted by dost_mittar on January 10, 2006 1:09:34 pm
tahmed32#294:
``and babar gave up alcohol only for political purposes``
According to a story narrated in the ``The Peacock Thone``, Babur would call an assembly of his troops on the night before a major operation and break his glass of wine, forswearing never to imbibe again and to be a good Muslim on a jihad. After the battle was over, it was a case of ``Kee main ne agar pee kay tau kis baat ki tauba``.
jang#297:
If your story about Dara Shikoh in earlier post was from ``The Peacock Throne``, my recollection is slightly different. The hindu raja who turned against Dara was, in fact, the husband of the woman who had breast-fed Aurangzeb as a child.
``and babar gave up alcohol only for political purposes``
According to a story narrated in the ``The Peacock Thone``, Babur would call an assembly of his troops on the night before a major operation and break his glass of wine, forswearing never to imbibe again and to be a good Muslim on a jihad. After the battle was over, it was a case of ``Kee main ne agar pee kay tau kis baat ki tauba``.
jang#297:
If your story about Dara Shikoh in earlier post was from ``The Peacock Throne``, my recollection is slightly different. The hindu raja who turned against Dara was, in fact, the husband of the woman who had breast-fed Aurangzeb as a child.
#297 Posted by jang on January 10, 2006 12:27:07 pm
#294...aurangzeb may not be given to alcohol and drugs, but he sure loved ``young`` girls. there are accounts of his falling for a slave girl in his mamas house and stuff like that. but no comparison to shajehan and jejangir etc. he was a driven man. he was as full of treachey as shivaji, towards his brother murad for e.g. who was on his side during the war of succession.
In those days, people were not considered to belong to a hindu religion or mussalman religion. You were a maratha kurmi, turki, habsi, farsi, rajput etc. aurangzeb was unique in identification of islam as important factor in employment and promotion. e.g. he often asked hindu sardars to convert as a part of employment offer. most other rulers gave better deal to their biradari, and other mercenaries who showed skills.
SN, i like the book The Peacock Throne the most since its highly readable, and quotes from multiple hisorical sources (mughal court documents, dispatches from firangi courtieres) to draw conclusions. Its not about sivaji however.
In those days, people were not considered to belong to a hindu religion or mussalman religion. You were a maratha kurmi, turki, habsi, farsi, rajput etc. aurangzeb was unique in identification of islam as important factor in employment and promotion. e.g. he often asked hindu sardars to convert as a part of employment offer. most other rulers gave better deal to their biradari, and other mercenaries who showed skills.
SN, i like the book The Peacock Throne the most since its highly readable, and quotes from multiple hisorical sources (mughal court documents, dispatches from firangi courtieres) to draw conclusions. Its not about sivaji however.
#296 Posted by shishapa on January 10, 2006 12:17:55 pm
Tahmadji,
True about Aurangzeb. I think he was austere man.
I have been so many times to Aurangabad (every summer while growing up), but I regret
not having visited nearby Khuldabad which is where Aurangzeb rests in a simple tomb.
I did manage to see on the last visit Devgiri (Daulatabad) fort and it is hauntingly beautiful
(and Verul (Ellora)) too.
Regarding Afzal Khan, depends whose story you listen. The story I grew up with is
Afzal Khan being such a huge man compared to Shivaji, was planning to crush
Shivaji during their meet. So Shivaji was prepared with tiger claw and when Afzal Khan
hugged Shivaji when they met, just that happened and Shivaji used tiger claws to rip open
Afzal Khan`s intestine.
Sounds gruesome but I guess that is how wars are. Not for feeble minded.
#295 Posted by tahmed32 on January 10, 2006 12:15:08 pm
jang: you are right in that shiva ji started his kingdom building prior to aurangzeb`s entry to the deccan, and so i was not accurate in saying that shiva ji was a reaction to aurangzeb`s fanaticism. but then: aurangzeb had already alienated the hindus (rajputs mostly i think) in the north by reimposing the jaziya and also idol breaking in the north. surely this must have stiffened shiva ji`s resolve and distrust as well.
aurangzeb`s mistake was obviously to put ideology before politics, and so wasted the last quarter of his life i think chasing shiva ji around the deccan and taking over titles to real estate he never could possibly hold on to. his taking over of Bijapur and Golconda in the south was hardly an achievement, since after his death they became largely independent. yet another example of the mess an ideology-driven government makes.
aurangzeb`s mistake was obviously to put ideology before politics, and so wasted the last quarter of his life i think chasing shiva ji around the deccan and taking over titles to real estate he never could possibly hold on to. his taking over of Bijapur and Golconda in the south was hardly an achievement, since after his death they became largely independent. yet another example of the mess an ideology-driven government makes.
#294 Posted by tahmed32 on January 10, 2006 12:03:00 pm
shishapa: Afzal Khan was of course the general from the Bijapur Sultanate, and of course it was his murder which was indeed a treacherous act on the part of shiva ji. But he was not alone in treachery in any case for those times (and even more in these days of terrorism).
like i said, the mughals did not play by the rules either: aurangzeb (again as I understand it) enticed him many years later to come to delhi and essentially put shiva ji under house arrest from where the latter then escaped. furthermore, shiva ji was no religious nut like aurangzeb it seems - shiva ji had many muslim soldiers in his army, e.g. (while Afzal Khan had many hindu soldiers).
All one can say on aurangzeb`s behalf is that he was not given to physical pleasures like his predecessors (jehangir was an alcoholic, humayun was into drugs, and babar gave up alcohol only for political purposes, and akbar seems from his pictures to have been overly given to eating). and so aurangzeb lived to be 90 unlike the others. and after death, occupies the least pretentious of mughal mausoleums per his own wishes - a simple grave in central india, with a tree to provide shade. that of course does not excuse the fanatical and irresponsible manner in which he ruled over india and the mess he left behind.
like i said, the mughals did not play by the rules either: aurangzeb (again as I understand it) enticed him many years later to come to delhi and essentially put shiva ji under house arrest from where the latter then escaped. furthermore, shiva ji was no religious nut like aurangzeb it seems - shiva ji had many muslim soldiers in his army, e.g. (while Afzal Khan had many hindu soldiers).
All one can say on aurangzeb`s behalf is that he was not given to physical pleasures like his predecessors (jehangir was an alcoholic, humayun was into drugs, and babar gave up alcohol only for political purposes, and akbar seems from his pictures to have been overly given to eating). and so aurangzeb lived to be 90 unlike the others. and after death, occupies the least pretentious of mughal mausoleums per his own wishes - a simple grave in central india, with a tree to provide shade. that of course does not excuse the fanatical and irresponsible manner in which he ruled over india and the mess he left behind.
#293 Posted by SN on January 10, 2006 11:43:09 am
Can u all name the best book u`ve read on this subject?
TIA
SN
TIA
SN
#292 Posted by shishapa on January 10, 2006 10:53:54 am
``#289 jang: shiva ji took up arms, as i understand, as a reaction to aurangzeb`s provocations and by any reasonable standard he was the proverbial folk hero who stood up to proverbial evil empire.``
No, Shivaji had already taken up arms against southern kingdoms like Adilshah,
Nizamshah, Kutubshah. Afzal Khan had nothing to do with Mughals.
Only when Shivaji grew in power did Aurangzeb took notice, like when he started
conquering Mugal forts. The struggle between AurangZeb and Shivaji started then.
Then Jai Singh and Diler Khan descended on Deccan.
I think Aurangzeb did not trust Jai Singh so he had sent Diler Khan, of equal if not
more in stature than Jai Singh at least was running the show in the battle of Killa (fort)
Purandar against Murarbaji (Shivaji`s captain on that fort).
#291 Posted by jang on January 10, 2006 10:49:49 am
#290 shivaji did not take arms against aurangzeb to begin with, he just carved out his principality from around where he lived, around puna, and konkan strip, which belonged to bijapur sulatanate mostly. aurangzeb later sent large armies under shaista khan, jaisingh-dilirkhan duo. in other words, shivaji did not attack aurangabad or burahanpur, which were major mughal encampments.
#290 Posted by tahmed32 on January 10, 2006 10:29:27 am
#289 jang: shiva ji took up arms, as i understand, as a reaction to aurangzeb`s provocations and by any reasonable standard he was the proverbial folk hero who stood up to proverbial evil empire. while he did not play clean - the mughals were hardly in a position to complain since they didnt play by geneva conventions either.
the mughals were of course great in many ways, but over-rated in many ways: their dynastic successions with son attacking father or brother would be a joke if it so many lives were not lost in the process and so many other fissures not caused in society. aurangzeb was clearly the most disastrous - alienated the hindus in the south; alienated and militarized the sikhs the way he did shivaji. the preceding regime of arabs, then turks and afghan rulers of the delhi sultanate as well as in other sultanates whose contributions are, conversely, under-rated imho.
this is not a coincidence i think: the arabs (under muhammed bin qasim) and more so the turks came to india at a time during what is generally agreed to be the centuries when muslim carried the torch of human civilization across the ``known`` world. 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``. While not as obvious as the more prominent historical events, seen in this broader light, it becomes clear exactly why the mughals are over-rated while the preceding sultanates are underrated.
the mughals were of course great in many ways, but over-rated in many ways: their dynastic successions with son attacking father or brother would be a joke if it so many lives were not lost in the process and so many other fissures not caused in society. aurangzeb was clearly the most disastrous - alienated the hindus in the south; alienated and militarized the sikhs the way he did shivaji. the preceding regime of arabs, then turks and afghan rulers of the delhi sultanate as well as in other sultanates whose contributions are, conversely, under-rated imho.
this is not a coincidence i think: the arabs (under muhammed bin qasim) and more so the turks came to india at a time during what is generally agreed to be the centuries when muslim carried the torch of human civilization across the ``known`` world. 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``. While not as obvious as the more prominent historical events, seen in this broader light, it becomes clear exactly why the mughals are over-rated while the preceding sultanates are underrated.
#289 Posted by jang on January 10, 2006 9:38:09 am
marathas (peasant warriors) did not exist much before shivaji as a political power, and jaisingh or rajputs would have no real enmity with sivaji. also, sivaji never went north in any campaign, except for robbing surat (kinda west). so i dont see any pre-mughal roots.
my read about jaisingh is that he ALWAYS seem to want to avoid battles, there are many cases where he advised patience, and no case where he advised attack. shahjehan was very much in the hands of rajputs, so much so that his personal guard used to be rajput, he was unsure of the turkis. things had changed considerably with azeb, he was alway suspicius of jaisingh (rightfully so, considering the number of political shifts jaisingh had done so far), and kept dilir khan to keep an eye on him in deccan. another major rajput raja jaswantsingh of jodhpur had also flipped on azeb in a dramatic fashion on the eve of attack on shuja outside allahabad, so rajput-mughal relations were not the best in general. shivaji is considered to have run away with help from jaisinghs son ramsingh.
the caste conflict bet rajput and maraths does not seem to show-up in historian accouts. it however does show up in dalitistan.org articles prominantly ;-)
my read about jaisingh is that he ALWAYS seem to want to avoid battles, there are many cases where he advised patience, and no case where he advised attack. shahjehan was very much in the hands of rajputs, so much so that his personal guard used to be rajput, he was unsure of the turkis. things had changed considerably with azeb, he was alway suspicius of jaisingh (rightfully so, considering the number of political shifts jaisingh had done so far), and kept dilir khan to keep an eye on him in deccan. another major rajput raja jaswantsingh of jodhpur had also flipped on azeb in a dramatic fashion on the eve of attack on shuja outside allahabad, so rajput-mughal relations were not the best in general. shivaji is considered to have run away with help from jaisinghs son ramsingh.
the caste conflict bet rajput and maraths does not seem to show-up in historian accouts. it however does show up in dalitistan.org articles prominantly ;-)
#288 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 10, 2006 9:10:02 am
#269, Bolta Aina,
Talking Mirror Sahib,
I don`t know about the story you heard in Avadh concerning Jai Singh`s role in drumming up the Aurangzeb/Shivaji clash, but the Rajput/Mahratta hatred may have some pre-Mughal roots, I don`t know. Maybe, our experts, such as Mr. Jang, in caste relationships and Indian history can shed some light on the subject. Isn`t it true that Rajputs always conisdered Mahrattas as lower castes? Also, I have heard that Shivaji tried to pose as a Rajput indirectly somehow. Anyway, these are all tales, but the true end to this topic is your statement from the other board:
{``In the north, he is considered as a hero because he fought with Aurangzeb and Aurangzeb was one who was against Hindus. I dont think he is considered a hero in Rajasthan from where his opponent Jai Singh belonged to. He is also not much praised in Gujarat and Western MP because of his invasions to these lands. ``}
Talking Mirror Sahib,
I don`t know about the story you heard in Avadh concerning Jai Singh`s role in drumming up the Aurangzeb/Shivaji clash, but the Rajput/Mahratta hatred may have some pre-Mughal roots, I don`t know. Maybe, our experts, such as Mr. Jang, in caste relationships and Indian history can shed some light on the subject. Isn`t it true that Rajputs always conisdered Mahrattas as lower castes? Also, I have heard that Shivaji tried to pose as a Rajput indirectly somehow. Anyway, these are all tales, but the true end to this topic is your statement from the other board:
{``In the north, he is considered as a hero because he fought with Aurangzeb and Aurangzeb was one who was against Hindus. I dont think he is considered a hero in Rajasthan from where his opponent Jai Singh belonged to. He is also not much praised in Gujarat and Western MP because of his invasions to these lands. ``}
#287 Posted by MantoLives on January 10, 2006 9:00:23 am
Dear Shishapa...
Please rest assure you can feel very strongly about anything you want... I certainly wouldn`t appreciate somebody telling me not to feel strongly about the witchdoctors of humanity.
As for my line ``It shows your real character`` is indicative of my very truthful feelings about you as a human being and as an Indian. I am merely expressing my point of view. As far as I am concerned, you have shown yourself up in a most freudian fashion.
Eid Mubarik to you sir- and have a nice day.
--
Eid Mubarik to the rest as well... Will return after two days leave to see whats going on out here.
Yours sincerely
YLH
Please rest assure you can feel very strongly about anything you want... I certainly wouldn`t appreciate somebody telling me not to feel strongly about the witchdoctors of humanity.
As for my line ``It shows your real character`` is indicative of my very truthful feelings about you as a human being and as an Indian. I am merely expressing my point of view. As far as I am concerned, you have shown yourself up in a most freudian fashion.
Eid Mubarik to you sir- and have a nice day.
--
Eid Mubarik to the rest as well... Will return after two days leave to see whats going on out here.
Yours sincerely
YLH
#286 Posted by shishapa on January 10, 2006 8:48:58 am
Mantoji,
``It shows your real character``
This line in your post # 281 was totally uncalled for. That is what I called namecalling
and not discussion. I have never ever characterized you in any way before and will not do
again.
Remember, I have right to feel strongly against those people who have worked on
dividing/to_the_detriment_of India just the way you have right to feel strongly against
people who work for dividing/to_the_detriment of Pakistan.
Anyway, last post from me on this board.
#285 Posted by MantoLives on January 10, 2006 8:41:52 am
Dear Shishapa
Talk like me how? Stoop to my argument how? I give you facts etc and you get upset?
You give clear proof that you consider only Muslims to be evil by mentioning a list of clothing associated with Muslims (and then make some adjustments adding Advani and Thackerey to the list)
By the way Jinnah has probably contributed more to Indian legislative history than any of your founding fathers... even the child marriages restraint act was passed due to his efforts... Indianisation of the Officer class in the Indian Army was due to his exclusive efforts... and he worked to the detriment. Yes he did because he could not accept hogwash from people like you after faithfully serving India as a patriot for 3 decades... and all you could come up with is a bs analogy with robbers... (ofcourse in a country like India where petty robbers become legislators this is what is expected..)
Talk like me how? Stoop to my argument how? I give you facts etc and you get upset?
You give clear proof that you consider only Muslims to be evil by mentioning a list of clothing associated with Muslims (and then make some adjustments adding Advani and Thackerey to the list)
By the way Jinnah has probably contributed more to Indian legislative history than any of your founding fathers... even the child marriages restraint act was passed due to his efforts... Indianisation of the Officer class in the Indian Army was due to his exclusive efforts... and he worked to the detriment. Yes he did because he could not accept hogwash from people like you after faithfully serving India as a patriot for 3 decades... and all you could come up with is a bs analogy with robbers... (ofcourse in a country like India where petty robbers become legislators this is what is expected..)
#284 Posted by shishapa on January 10, 2006 8:30:32 am
In case it has not penetrated in your thick skull yet, all these people are evil to me because
they have either worked or working to the detriment of India.
See I can talk like you. And that would be last time I will be talking to anyone like that
because I do not want to stoop to your level of argument during discussions.
#283 Posted by MantoLives on January 10, 2006 8:22:04 am
Name calling? What name calling? Are you a liar too? You missed dhoti... you missed Gandhi cap... that shows that you were only talking of Muslims.
Here is a much more neutral and accurate list of ``Evil`` as you put it:
Dhoti: Gandhi, Bal Thackerey
Red Mark on the forehead: Uma Bharati, Bal Thackerey, Tara Singh
Bearded : Modi, Maulana Maudoodi, Ata ullah Shah Bukhari, Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind
non-bearded - Thackerey, Nehru, Patel, Gandhi
topiwala (Gandhi cap and Muslim aka Jinnah Cap - Maulana Azad, Bacha Khan, Ulema of Deoband, Nehru
sherwaniwala - Maulana Azad, Most Nationalist Muslims...
veiled - Asiya Andrabi, the wives of Ulema of Deoband (wait they were not even allowed in politics)...
--
That you are looking for excuses shows that you are still not ready to take even a little bit responsibility on your own people.
Here is a much more neutral and accurate list of ``Evil`` as you put it:
Dhoti: Gandhi, Bal Thackerey
Red Mark on the forehead: Uma Bharati, Bal Thackerey, Tara Singh
Bearded : Modi, Maulana Maudoodi, Ata ullah Shah Bukhari, Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind
non-bearded - Thackerey, Nehru, Patel, Gandhi
topiwala (Gandhi cap and Muslim aka Jinnah Cap - Maulana Azad, Bacha Khan, Ulema of Deoband, Nehru
sherwaniwala - Maulana Azad, Most Nationalist Muslims...
veiled - Asiya Andrabi, the wives of Ulema of Deoband (wait they were not even allowed in politics)...
--
That you are looking for excuses shows that you are still not ready to take even a little bit responsibility on your own people.
#282 Posted by shishapa on January 10, 2006 8:07:22 am
Bearded - Syed Ali Gilaani
non-bearded - Advani, Thakre
topiwala - I just threw that in
sherwaniwala - Jinnah
veiled - Ayesa Andrabi
OK. Now continue with the name-calling and exposes.
#281 Posted by MantoLives on January 10, 2006 7:59:01 am
PS: About ``non-bearded`` ... it is suitably placed between ``Bearded, non-beaded, topiwala, sherwaniwala, veiled``
It shows your real character... if you were honestly suggesting non-muslims... it would have also had ... dhoti wala, half naked, gandhi cap wala... heck you didn`t even say non-veiled... even though most Muslim women, especially those who fought for Pakistan, were non-veiled.
It shows your real character... if you were honestly suggesting non-muslims... it would have also had ... dhoti wala, half naked, gandhi cap wala... heck you didn`t even say non-veiled... even though most Muslim women, especially those who fought for Pakistan, were non-veiled.
#280 Posted by MantoLives on January 10, 2006 7:55:22 am
But dear Shishapa... the integrity and incorruptibility of the man was unquestionable and generally accepted by his worst critics and opponents... friend and foe alike... both Gandhi (his rival-I don`t place much importance to his quote) and Ambedkar (his one time ally) called him ``incorruptible``... This was a view that was shared by all...
To quote Ambedkar: ``At the same time, it is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed, he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah.``
Jang :
Artha Veda is what the Ismailis called the Holy Quran for the longest time .... and it is still referred to as that by some.
#279 Posted by jang on January 10, 2006 7:45:13 am
#275
``Ismaili faith in which he referred to the Quran as Artha Veda``
what is artha veda?
``Ismaili faith in which he referred to the Quran as Artha Veda``
what is artha veda?
#278 Posted by shishapa on January 10, 2006 7:44:13 am
I thought Advani, Thakre did not have beard either. And last I checked they
did not call themselves Muslims.
Does a robber tell you before he is going to rob you or your house?
A robber is probably your good neighbour which you never suspected and always
thought a good guy, a law-abiding citizen.
Only if we could read what is going on a person`s mind, when he/she is going to curdle,
we could prevent so many tragedies, like saving millions lives.
#277 Posted by MantoLives on January 10, 2006 7:31:09 am
``Evil comes in all shape and sizes. Bearded, non-beaded, topiwala, sherwaniwala, veiled``
I am impressed that evil only takes Muslim form.
#276 Posted by shishapa on January 10, 2006 6:59:51 am
Evil comes in all shape and sizes. Bearded, non-beaded, topiwala, sherwaniwala, veiled.
It suddenly changes colour to your detriment, giving you false impression of serenity.
#275 Posted by MantoLives on January 10, 2006 2:56:23 am
A comment:
The fact of the matter is that it eats up most Indians, especially Hindus, that a man like Jinnah, a man their own leaders praised as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, a man who did not overtly appear to be any more Muslim than say the viceroy of India and who practised the Ismaili faith in which he referred to the Quran as Artha Veda... ultimately ended up making Pakistan. This takes the wind out of their hairbrained analyses on the kinds of Muslims... because the Islamic minded, the kind that described dancing as haraam, music as haraam etc i.e. Majlis-e-Ahrar, Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind, Jamaat-e-Islami etc who supported the Congress Party and its drama of ``composite nationalism`` to the hilt.
Now I come to Bolta Aina`s bakwas:
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.
This is the old trick of the unionists... Gandhi, the casteist Hindu bigot, after failing to keep India united under Caste Hindu Rule, started promoting Afghanistan`s claims over Pakistan ... and championing Pukhtoonistan.
In the 1920s, when that hypocrite Abdul Ghaffar ``Bacha`` Khan went to Afghanistan (As part of Maulana Azad`s Fatwa claiming that Hindustan was Darul Harb), he met the King of Afghanistan, the King said - why don`t you fight to make NWFP part of Afghanistan... Bacha Khan responded: ``Why should we- we are part of India``
But in 1947... all of sudden Bacha Khan declared that NWFP was never part of India... that Pakistan`s rulers were not going to allow ``Shariat`` to be imposed in Pakistan and that to be truly Islamic the Pukhtoons should join up with Afghanistan as an autonomous unit.
Then these people self righteously claim all the nonsense they claim.
The fact of the matter is that it eats up most Indians, especially Hindus, that a man like Jinnah, a man their own leaders praised as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, a man who did not overtly appear to be any more Muslim than say the viceroy of India and who practised the Ismaili faith in which he referred to the Quran as Artha Veda... ultimately ended up making Pakistan. This takes the wind out of their hairbrained analyses on the kinds of Muslims... because the Islamic minded, the kind that described dancing as haraam, music as haraam etc i.e. Majlis-e-Ahrar, Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind, Jamaat-e-Islami etc who supported the Congress Party and its drama of ``composite nationalism`` to the hilt.
Now I come to Bolta Aina`s bakwas:
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.
This is the old trick of the unionists... Gandhi, the casteist Hindu bigot, after failing to keep India united under Caste Hindu Rule, started promoting Afghanistan`s claims over Pakistan ... and championing Pukhtoonistan.
In the 1920s, when that hypocrite Abdul Ghaffar ``Bacha`` Khan went to Afghanistan (As part of Maulana Azad`s Fatwa claiming that Hindustan was Darul Harb), he met the King of Afghanistan, the King said - why don`t you fight to make NWFP part of Afghanistan... Bacha Khan responded: ``Why should we- we are part of India``
But in 1947... all of sudden Bacha Khan declared that NWFP was never part of India... that Pakistan`s rulers were not going to allow ``Shariat`` to be imposed in Pakistan and that to be truly Islamic the Pukhtoons should join up with Afghanistan as an autonomous unit.
Then these people self righteously claim all the nonsense they claim.
#274 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 9, 2006 11:17:35 pm
#233 MANTOLIVES
Thanks for your reference to Vienna Convention on treaties.
On reading the just first paragraph, the Treaty is defined as :-
Quote
(a) “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
Unquote
The Treaty has to be governed by ``INTERNATIONAL LAW`` otherwise Vienna Convention is not applicable to it ?
The Durand Line Agreement was signed by Afghans under duress and under force from the British. That Agreement does not pass the international law and is null and void according to Vienna Convention quoted by you.
Your Witness please.
Thanks for your reference to Vienna Convention on treaties.
On reading the just first paragraph, the Treaty is defined as :-
Quote
(a) “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
Unquote
The Treaty has to be governed by ``INTERNATIONAL LAW`` otherwise Vienna Convention is not applicable to it ?
The Durand Line Agreement was signed by Afghans under duress and under force from the British. That Agreement does not pass the international law and is null and void according to Vienna Convention quoted by you.
Your Witness please.
#272 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 9, 2006 10:33:19 pm
[URL=http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=durrandline6ub.gif][IMG]http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3933/durrandline6ub.th.gif[/IMG][/URL]
#271 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 9, 2006 9:42:53 pm
Other forum members may visit the following URL,the official website of Afghanistan for more on Durand Line and Afghanistan stand on it :-
http://www.afghanistans.com/Information/History/Durandline.htm
http://www.afghanistans.com/Information/History/Durandline.htm
#270 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 9, 2006 9:28:11 pm
#233 MANTOLIVES
Ek ney kahi, dusrey ne mani,
Guru Nanak kahain, dono Gyani.
Be happy with the words and their meanings.
Does the Vienna Convention covers all the treaties signed by human beings since times immemorial?
Even a sadak-chaap lawyer will tell you that agreements between two parties cease to exist when one of the parties cease to exist. The agreements are not automatically transferred to the successors until & unless they are ratified by both the parties. If you sign an agreement with my father and my father dies ,you are free either to continue that agreement with me i.e. his son and successor or get the agreement terminated. Legally, I cannot force you to continue that agreement which my father had signed with you. It is also the other way round. I am also not oblidged to honour any agreement which my father made with anybody in which I am not a signatory. Of course, if there are any dues to be paid to you, that I will have to pay only if I become a successor to my father. If my father dies penniless and there is nothing to succeed, I am not oblidged to pay the dues out of my own earnings. I will pay the dues only from that which I have inherited from my father.
Similarly, in case of Durand Line, when British had ceased to exist, it is upto Afghanistan now to continue that agreement with the successor state i.e. Pakistan or not. So far, as far as I understand, no such written agreement has been signed by A`tan and P`tan.
SO YOUR OCCUPATION OF AREAS COVERED UNDER DURAND LINE IS ILLEGAL.
Now from where this hundred years business has come from. For your information the term of Hundred Years for any agreement is not without any basis. It is an accepted judicial procedure worldover. After the end of colonialism after World War-II and emergence of independent states, it was indeed a point that the colonialists had signed many agreements with the natives from time to time which run in perpetuity. Because, they did not have any time frame as to when they will elapse. An agreement in perpetuity ,even today, is illegal. It should have atleast a line that this agreement will remain in force till the signatories agree to do so.
So to kill the agreements signed by the colonialists with the natives legally, the duration of 100 years was introduced in the Judicial procedure. That means, if the agreement does not have a time frame, it will automatically terminate after 100 Years.
Ek ney kahi, dusrey ne mani,
Guru Nanak kahain, dono Gyani.
Be happy with the words and their meanings.
Does the Vienna Convention covers all the treaties signed by human beings since times immemorial?
Even a sadak-chaap lawyer will tell you that agreements between two parties cease to exist when one of the parties cease to exist. The agreements are not automatically transferred to the successors until & unless they are ratified by both the parties. If you sign an agreement with my father and my father dies ,you are free either to continue that agreement with me i.e. his son and successor or get the agreement terminated. Legally, I cannot force you to continue that agreement which my father had signed with you. It is also the other way round. I am also not oblidged to honour any agreement which my father made with anybody in which I am not a signatory. Of course, if there are any dues to be paid to you, that I will have to pay only if I become a successor to my father. If my father dies penniless and there is nothing to succeed, I am not oblidged to pay the dues out of my own earnings. I will pay the dues only from that which I have inherited from my father.
Similarly, in case of Durand Line, when British had ceased to exist, it is upto Afghanistan now to continue that agreement with the successor state i.e. Pakistan or not. So far, as far as I understand, no such written agreement has been signed by A`tan and P`tan.
SO YOUR OCCUPATION OF AREAS COVERED UNDER DURAND LINE IS ILLEGAL.
Now from where this hundred years business has come from. For your information the term of Hundred Years for any agreement is not without any basis. It is an accepted judicial procedure worldover. After the end of colonialism after World War-II and emergence of independent states, it was indeed a point that the colonialists had signed many agreements with the natives from time to time which run in perpetuity. Because, they did not have any time frame as to when they will elapse. An agreement in perpetuity ,even today, is illegal. It should have atleast a line that this agreement will remain in force till the signatories agree to do so.
So to kill the agreements signed by the colonialists with the natives legally, the duration of 100 years was introduced in the Judicial procedure. That means, if the agreement does not have a time frame, it will automatically terminate after 100 Years.
#269 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 9, 2006 8:51:25 pm
#241 SALIM BHAI
``If we can stop tagging Indians as heroes or villains, then I submit, why the constant drum beats of declaring Shivaji a great hero for fighting Aurangzeb?``
I agree with with you. It is not proper to brandish Shivaji as a hero and Aurangzeb as the villian. If we have guts, lets call Aurangzeb-Shivaji conflict as Avadh-Maratha Conflict or more precisely Jai Singh-Shivaji conflict, which is the true picture.
When you have raised the question here, let me tell you another version of Aurangzeb-Shivaji Conflict which was prevalent in Avadh at one point of time. You can call this as a folklore. How far this version is correct, I cannot say because it does not appear in any of the authoritative accounts of Aurangzeb-Shivaji history. But it was prevalent as a the hear-say in Avadh at one point of time, though now it has faded for obvious political reasons.
Aurangzeb had spent his prime-time fighting in Deccan and he was quite aware that it is very difficult to fight in rough and mountaineous terrains. He ,himslef, was not very keen for having a fight with Shivaji because he knew will be very difficult to defeat him in the mountains. He, instead, wanted to have a truce with Shivaji. But Raja Jai Singh, the proudy Rajput, instigated Aurangzeb to attack Shivaji saying that he will be cowed down in no time. Aurangzeb agreed and he sent Raja Jai Singh to fight with Shivaji. The war ended without any decisive victory. Then Raja Jai Singh persuaded Shivaji to visit Agra to sign a treaty with Aurangzeb. On the other hand ,Jai Singh told Aurangzeb that Shivaji has conceded his defeat and he is coming to Agra for signing the truce agreement. When both i.e. Aurangzeb and Shivaji were face to face, both of them thought that they were the victors. This resulted in ego clash between them and Shivaji was subsequently imprisoned. It is also said that when Aurangzeb came to know of the facts, he intentionally became complacent so that Shivaji could flee from the prison.
``If we can stop tagging Indians as heroes or villains, then I submit, why the constant drum beats of declaring Shivaji a great hero for fighting Aurangzeb?``
I agree with with you. It is not proper to brandish Shivaji as a hero and Aurangzeb as the villian. If we have guts, lets call Aurangzeb-Shivaji conflict as Avadh-Maratha Conflict or more precisely Jai Singh-Shivaji conflict, which is the true picture.
When you have raised the question here, let me tell you another version of Aurangzeb-Shivaji Conflict which was prevalent in Avadh at one point of time. You can call this as a folklore. How far this version is correct, I cannot say because it does not appear in any of the authoritative accounts of Aurangzeb-Shivaji history. But it was prevalent as a the hear-say in Avadh at one point of time, though now it has faded for obvious political reasons.
Aurangzeb had spent his prime-time fighting in Deccan and he was quite aware that it is very difficult to fight in rough and mountaineous terrains. He ,himslef, was not very keen for having a fight with Shivaji because he knew will be very difficult to defeat him in the mountains. He, instead, wanted to have a truce with Shivaji. But Raja Jai Singh, the proudy Rajput, instigated Aurangzeb to attack Shivaji saying that he will be cowed down in no time. Aurangzeb agreed and he sent Raja Jai Singh to fight with Shivaji. The war ended without any decisive victory. Then Raja Jai Singh persuaded Shivaji to visit Agra to sign a treaty with Aurangzeb. On the other hand ,Jai Singh told Aurangzeb that Shivaji has conceded his defeat and he is coming to Agra for signing the truce agreement. When both i.e. Aurangzeb and Shivaji were face to face, both of them thought that they were the victors. This resulted in ego clash between them and Shivaji was subsequently imprisoned. It is also said that when Aurangzeb came to know of the facts, he intentionally became complacent so that Shivaji could flee from the prison.
#268 Posted by bolta_aaina on January 9, 2006 8:27:41 pm
#231 MANTOLIVES
``As ferozk pointed out a few months ago on another board- Pakistan and Afghanistan have indeed agreed to accept the Durand Line as the permanent border by agreement. ``
No Sir, there has not been any agreement or atleast written agreement between Pakistan and Afganistan regarding Durand Line, as far as my little knowledge goes. Afghanistan still maintains that they had signed Durand Line Agreement with the British under duress in 1893 and they no more accept it. The only thing they are not in the position today to wrest from Pakistan forcefully.
I assure you Sir, that as & when Afghanistan is in a position to wrest it forcefully, it will do it without blinking an eyelid.
``As ferozk pointed out a few months ago on another board- Pakistan and Afghanistan have indeed agreed to accept the Durand Line as the permanent border by agreement. ``
No Sir, there has not been any agreement or atleast written agreement between Pakistan and Afganistan regarding Durand Line, as far as my little knowledge goes. Afghanistan still maintains that they had signed Durand Line Agreement with the British under duress in 1893 and they no more accept it. The only thing they are not in the position today to wrest from Pakistan forcefully.
I assure you Sir, that as & when Afghanistan is in a position to wrest it forcefully, it will do it without blinking an eyelid.
#267 Posted by tahmed32 on January 9, 2006 7:09:10 pm
#253 dm ``I was merely saying that Hindus and Muslims in general have different perspectives on Indian history.``
It need not be so if one is interested in learning the truth, and so does not ignore facts that run counter to one`s views. Let me use a chowk favorite as an example: Gandhi vs. Jinnah.
I have always expressed appreciation for both, and for very specific reasons. It doesnt matter to me that Gandhi was a hindu and Jinnah was a muslim. Going further back in history, I can find all kinds of things to appreciate in every single group: I wrote an article once on the ancient harrappan civilization on chowk. The fact that they were not muslims was totally irrelevant. I could go on. Why do you think that as a hindu (or as sikh or whatever) you are bound to see things differently than me when it comes to muslims? (and please dont tell me that they were invaders - the british were invaders too, and i think they were the best thing that happened to India by any objective standard). Surely one can have the confidence to see things objectively.
It need not be so if one is interested in learning the truth, and so does not ignore facts that run counter to one`s views. Let me use a chowk favorite as an example: Gandhi vs. Jinnah.
I have always expressed appreciation for both, and for very specific reasons. It doesnt matter to me that Gandhi was a hindu and Jinnah was a muslim. Going further back in history, I can find all kinds of things to appreciate in every single group: I wrote an article once on the ancient harrappan civilization on chowk. The fact that they were not muslims was totally irrelevant. I could go on. Why do you think that as a hindu (or as sikh or whatever) you are bound to see things differently than me when it comes to muslims? (and please dont tell me that they were invaders - the british were invaders too, and i think they were the best thing that happened to India by any objective standard). Surely one can have the confidence to see things objectively.
#266 Posted by amansandhu on January 9, 2006 5:02:24 pm
Guru Nanak was deeply influenced by the sufi saint Baba Farid. When the Adi Granth was compiled by the fifth Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Arjun Dev Ji, Farid’s ‘slokas’ were given the place of honour along with those of Kabir, Ramdev and Guru Ravidas.
Baba Sheikh Farid had been in the 12th & 13th centuries, a great intellectual, unique renunciat, perfect ascetic and committed devotee of the Timeless Lord who communicated to the common folk the revealed divine message through the medium of sweet, soothing Punjabi language. One of the greatest virtues of his life was his love and sympathy for entire mankind. His heart felt pain of oppression perpetuated by the Muslim invaders in the name of religion. He tried to put balm on the hurt psyche of the people through the medium of sweet, soothing words so that the adverse impact caused by excesses of the orthodox Muslims to the image of Islam could be neutralised. Such an act on the part of someone was required for the revival of the feeling of fraternity amongst mankind. The unique humanitarian values of compassion, love, sympathy, mutual understanding and appreciation are clothed in the hymns of Farid as fragrance is in flowers. For his sweet words, sweet ideals and sweet behaviour, Farid became known as an epitome of Sweetness (Shakarganj] is full name was Sheikh Farid ud-din Maund Ganj-I-Shakar.
Farid occupies a place of pre-eminence among the Punjabi poets. During his lifetime, wherever he went, whomever he conversed with, could not but be influenced by the high, pious and divine ideas of Farid. So much do that Raja Gokul Dev changed the name of his capital town to Faridkot in honour of this great Sufi saint.
Sheikh Farid was a disciple of Khwaja Bakhtiar Kaki, the disciple & spiritual successor of Hazrat Ali who had received spiritual training from Hasan Basri; a known saint of Chishti traditon. His father, Sheikh Jala ud-din Suleman, was descendant of the second Calipha of Islam. According to a historian, Farid was related to the Royal family of emporer Farakhshal of Kabul, but the family was uprooted due to the invasions by Changez He continued preaching his message throughout his life, and at last breathed his last in AD 1266 at Pak Patan, earliar known by the name Ajodhan.
Baba Sheikh Farid had been in the 12th & 13th centuries, a great intellectual, unique renunciat, perfect ascetic and committed devotee of the Timeless Lord who communicated to the common folk the revealed divine message through the medium of sweet, soothing Punjabi language. One of the greatest virtues of his life was his love and sympathy for entire mankind. His heart felt pain of oppression perpetuated by the Muslim invaders in the name of religion. He tried to put balm on the hurt psyche of the people through the medium of sweet, soothing words so that the adverse impact caused by excesses of the orthodox Muslims to the image of Islam could be neutralised. Such an act on the part of someone was required for the revival of the feeling of fraternity amongst mankind. The unique humanitarian values of compassion, love, sympathy, mutual understanding and appreciation are clothed in the hymns of Farid as fragrance is in flowers. For his sweet words, sweet ideals and sweet behaviour, Farid became known as an epitome of Sweetness (Shakarganj] is full name was Sheikh Farid ud-din Maund Ganj-I-Shakar.
Farid occupies a place of pre-eminence among the Punjabi poets. During his lifetime, wherever he went, whomever he conversed with, could not but be influenced by the high, pious and divine ideas of Farid. So much do that Raja Gokul Dev changed the name of his capital town to Faridkot in honour of this great Sufi saint.
Sheikh Farid was a disciple of Khwaja Bakhtiar Kaki, the disciple & spiritual successor of Hazrat Ali who had received spiritual training from Hasan Basri; a known saint of Chishti traditon. His father, Sheikh Jala ud-din Suleman, was descendant of the second Calipha of Islam. According to a historian, Farid was related to the Royal family of emporer Farakhshal of Kabul, but the family was uprooted due to the invasions by Changez He continued preaching his message throughout his life, and at last breathed his last in AD 1266 at Pak Patan, earliar known by the name Ajodhan.
#265 Posted by dullabhatti on January 9, 2006 4:50:28 pm
When I say ``borrowed from Arabic by Punjabi`` ...I mean Punjabi or prior languages spoken in the region.
#264 Posted by dullabhatti on January 9, 2006 4:48:32 pm
Salim, Rabb is clearly a generic term for God borrowed from Arabic by Punjabi probably few milleniums ago. Most sikhs in social context in common speech use the word Rabb for God. I believe Rabb is probably most used for God in Punjab than other words (for God). Sikh scriptures also used Rabb but many times less than any other word used for God in Sikh scriptures like Waheguru, Parmatma, Ishwar, Khuda, Karta-purkh,Bhagwan, Ram, Pritam, Rachanhaar, Daata, Prabhu etc. I don`t remember Khalis used for God anywhere, I don;t think it is. Sahib(a) is used for God and also for Guru but it seems mostly used where poetically effective or appropriate. Another Arabic origin designation used in scripture is Khalq..mostly by Baba Farid, Bhagat Kabir and Guru Nanak.
BTW Rabb is as Islamic as jhatka kukkaR.:).
BTW Rabb is as Islamic as jhatka kukkaR.:).
#263 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 9, 2006 3:50:04 pm
Just one question regarding Islamic influence on Sikhism.
Sikhs use rab, sahib, khalis, and other words of Arabic origin. Is this due to language or is there a religious connection?
Sikhs use rab, sahib, khalis, and other words of Arabic origin. Is this due to language or is there a religious connection?
#262 Posted by dullabhatti on January 9, 2006 3:31:06 pm
#254 DM ji I was refering to some other comment made on Nanak being influenced by Islam made on the board.(unless I posted on wrong board).
#261 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on January 9, 2006 3:30:38 pm
#260, AlephNull {``OTOH, ‘Alif Lam Meem’ at the head of many Quranic suras may just be the familiar aum/om. ``}
ALeph,
That`s very interesting. I never even thought of that. Actually, I was taught that the three ltetters ALIF LAAM MEEM stand for something but that is no longer known and a mystery. Maybe you have a point there.
I still contend that the phonetic similarity in the sound of Brahma and Abraham is no coincidence. There has to be much more than what w
ALeph,
That`s very interesting. I never even thought of that. Actually, I was taught that the three ltetters ALIF LAAM MEEM stand for something but that is no longer known and a mystery. Maybe you have a point there.
I still contend that the phonetic similarity in the sound of Brahma and Abraham is no coincidence. There has to be much more than what w