Wapsi (The Returning)

kardesh, apparently all landholding muslims of india almost surely were converted rajas during late-mughal (a.zeb) times. pre a.zeb, alliances were sought but no conversion was needed. it was policy of mughals (and other indian rulers) to employ turki mansabdars, but never deed them hereditary rights to a land. their sons may also gain employment as a mansabdar in the cavalry, but typically the padshah would confisticate the turk or afgan soldiers treasury and women upon his death. for hindu fiefs inheritance of land was the rule. so therefore, all smaller nawabs and muslim feudals (except big shots like the nizam etc) were hindus converted during a.zeb times.

#260 by Netizen
{What Peter did to the Russian empore Aurangi did exactly the opposite to the Moghal Empire. There is a wide difference in the personalities too. Peter wanted the russians to reform become more Westernised whereas Aurangi wanted to take the Empire back to the medieval times (conservatism).``}

Netizen,
You may very well be right. If we judge both Peter and Aurangzeb by what resulted long after their deaths, then what you say is definitely right. If we judge individual accomplishments, then one can say that Aurangzeb extended the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent. On a personal level, history records that he was, as an individual, very courageious (attaching a mad elephant as a teenager and saving lives of those present) and certainly commanded the respect and devotion of his troops. As a strategist, he probably was a big failure - imposition of jizya, obsession with Sivaji and Deccan, wars with Shias and Mahrattas, unnecessary violence and cruelty against Sikhs, too much of a Sunni fundo, letting religious zeal get in way of proper administration. On the plus side, he was able to thwart Portuguese expansion in India, delay British ascendency by several decades, show personal piety and lack of corruption as a ruler. Overall, judging by the results, Aurangzeb was not a successful badshah - although he ruled longer than any other Mughal.


#258 Netizen
{``Ever heard of Rana Pratap of Mewar, Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer? I never thought I would hear such a statement for a proud Rajput. I am disappointed :(``}

Yes, I have heard of both and they are well-known in Indian history for their deeds. If you go to my profile page, you can see that I admire Prithviraj Chauhan as a great hero and a role model. I am sorry to disappoint you, but that is not my intention. Let us study history and strive to learn the truth from it - not to whitewash ourselves as clean victims and others as descendants of monsters. Although I had no choice in my selection of ancestors, I am happy to be of Rajput descent - it`s part of my heritage.

Have you ever considered that Aurangzeb was a Rajput also? Jahangir was half Rajput and Shah Jahan was 3/4 Rajput. In Indian culture, relatives on your mother`s side are as equal as those on your father`s side - infact, we Chanda Mama and not Chanda Chacha. All Mughal rulers from Jahangir down to Bahadur Shah Zafar had very close Hindu, usually Hindu Rajput, relatives. Is it possible for you to understand, that many Rajputs looked to Mughal rulers as their own blood and kin? I think since ChittoD (when Akbar, who was not Rajput, conquered Rajputana) there was never a Rajput rebellion against Mughal rule. What does that tell you? It`s all in the family - the Rajput family.

#262 anil
{``And the contemporaries you have quoted are all men of power over people, and wealth, also victors in some sense. Or if someone admires brutalities of Pakistani Army in Bangladesh, Indian Army / Jihadis in Kashmir, the U.S. Army in Iraq?
...I am unable to understand this contradiction among Muslim Rajputs. On one hand they adore or at the very least accept the brutes and on the other hand they also hold on dear to Rajput roots to proudly show in their last names.``}

Anil,
I am inclined to agree with you. In absolute terms, it is not pleasant to admire people who engaged in warfare, looting, pillaging, murder, and adding to human suffering. That pretty much takes care of most of mankind`s leaders and notables. I never said that I admired Aurangzeb or Akbar. They are men of history, who accomplished or failed to accomplish important tasks in their lifetimes - all I said is that we need to compare them to their contemporaries, and not by our standards of today ``tainted by the likes of Mother Teresa, Mohandas Gandhi, and the recently-departed Pope.`` I am being sarcastic, but lately, thank God, we humans are coming around to condemning violence, ethnic cleansing, murder, rapes, and pillage. Muslim Rajputs are those who are descended from Rajputs but follow the Islamic faith. As such, they have at least a dual aspect to their existence - Muslim and Rajput. This is not very different from a Muslim Jat, a Muslim Pathan, or a Muslim Seljuk. My grandfather, my father, my brothers, and I have sustained several jokes, unkind comments, and general incovenience, even on Chowk, as a result of our Hindu last name. Well, it is the truth, and we are not going to change our names for the convenience of our antagonists - whoever they may be. But I agree with you in your comments about humanity, compassion, and admiration.

#257 jang
{``i have a huge respect for aurangzeb based on my reading of war of succession history as an able emperor ...Alamgir A`zeb however had a big incentive plan by which he would award large Mansabdari (knighthoods) based on conversions. It was common in India to steal knights from other courts by awarding larger mansabdari``}

Jang,
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint about Aurangzeb. I just try to understand him, as a ruler, as a person, in his time - just as I try to understand Prthviraj Chauhan, as a ruler, as a person, in his time some four hundered years perviously. I do not have either admiration or scorn for Mr. Zeb. On the issue of Mansabdari, I do know that my family had lands in UP and these were lost in 1857. I am told by elders and word of mouth that the conversion to Islam was based on devotion to Aurangzeb and as a sign of loyalty to him personally. But then again, these are all stories. I just am a consequence as are all of us.

#259 Netizen
{``Of all your talk of Aurangis courage and military achievements, his policies and strategies dealt a death knell to the once mighty Moghals.``}

I agree totally with you. I am not the one singing praises of Aurangzeb. These are stories, passed down over the generations, about his bravery and courage. I was just repeating them, as I probably will to my children. Judging by results, Aurangzeb was a failure -strategically speaking.

#261 MaheshG2
{`` The transfer of population between India and Pakistan took over 4 years (1947-1951). The massacres of population must have been limited to the years of 1947 and 1948. My contention is however that Pakistan (west pakistan at the time) essentially ensured that all of its provinces were rid of minority population (Hindus and Sikhs) in those 4 years. How this was accomplished is not my concern. ``}

But MaheshJi, that should be your concern. The ``transfer of populations`` in 47-48 was the main reason for the disappearance of minorities (Hindus and Sikhs in W. Punjab and Muslims in East Punjab). The reasons were many:

Sikhs wanted to consolidate Sikh presence in East Punjab. To make room for their brethren from West Punjab, they started to ethnically clean East Punjab (esp Patiala and Kapurtala and Amritsar). The wipeout in Delhi and Sindh was not complete but substantial.

To my knowledge, there has never been a Gujarat type incident in West Pakistan. Believe me, I would be advertising it if it happened. I hate ethnic cleansing and mass killing - no matter who the victim or the perpetrator - just trust me. Yes, in East Pak, the ``Bihari`` population and West Pak army did engage in rape, killing, and murder on an indiscrimate and barbaric manner. This, I am told, was in revenge for the March 71 killings by Awami League activisits when they killed large numbers of West Pakis, Biharis, and other non-Bengalis. There were stories of Urdu-Speaking girls kept in Universities as sex-slaves for the enjoyment of Bengali student activists. But this is all past history. So is Gujarat.

MaheshG2
“essentially ensured that all of its provinces were rid of minority population (Hindus and Sikhs) in those 4 years. How this was accomplished is not my concern.”

Well! Essentially this is the kind of skewed logic that makes me not to discuss this with you any further. You claim that five to six million people vanished and you just have no clue as how it was accomplished!
I don’t know how you came up with this brilliant piece of logic. 1947-51 was not like in ancient times. This world just a few years before 1947-51 witnessed a brutal war and large scale mass murders and pogroms. The whole thing is documented and there was no way the world would have just let it go if the same type of brutalities ware repeated in Pakistan or anywhere else.
Unless you prove how Pakistani accomplished/managed disappearances of millions of people with out a trace, all your posts are just bogus, non serious and you are just mouthing the ridiculous RSS propaganda line.

We know that people died and moved from both sides of the border in 1947 and 1948. After that, there is not a single record of any minority killing or mass murdering or deportation from Pakistan. You cannot provide any instance (because there is none) of Hindu Muslim riots in Pakistan after 1949 to till date despite 2.5 million Hindus population in Sindh. Even in 1947-48, there were no attacks on Hindu life and property in Sindh. Whatever took place was in Punjab and other parts of north India. What is common in India (Hindu-Muslim riots) is non existent in Pakistan. There is not a single Sindhi (Hindu or Muslim) who died in any religious riots after 1947. There was only one incident of Hindu Muslims riots in Sukker when Muslims from Rajhistan moved to that area. People from Sindh do not believe in killing their brothers and neighbors. Now please go away. I am not interested in discussing this any further unless you come up with proof.

Hi everybody,
just joined. I have watched the discussion so far. I was hoping there would be some healthy discussion, some curiosity etc etc about my film.
I did hope people in Pakistan may be interested in wanting copies to see for themselves how the film looks. Perhaps it is not at all so much only about the minorities.
Anyway, there`s going to be another screening of the film. If any of you are Mumbai log, please take time out to come and see.

WAPSI
7.30 PM SATURDAY, APRIL 23. THE PRESS CLUB CONFERENCE HALL. NEAR BMC BUILDING, VT STATION, MUMBAI
Ajay Raina

Re: # 256

Kardesh:

``......I think Aurangzeb fit in quite well with his contemporaries. That, my friend, is my point. `` With the above statement you have justified why you admire Aurangzeb, and can eulogize the brutality of people in power.

And the contemporaries you have quoted are all men of power over people, and wealth, also victors in some sense. I am sure Maharana Pratab also killed to survive while waging a guerilla war and living in jungles and feeding his family bread and water for survival. The story I studied in school, as I recall was that he indeed killed the animal who took away the bread that his daughter was eating.

How would it be different than your position of admire a brute, in the modern times, when a grandsons or great grandsons of Hitler`s sympathizers can now say that they admire Hitler. Or if someone admires brutalities of Pakistani Army in Bangladesh, Indian Army / Jihadis in Kashmir, the U.S. Army in Iraq?

Power over people and ensuing wealth often does this dirty trick for the most who are willing to accept a form of brutality and cruelity as being perpetrated for those who deserved it, by those who are correct and virtuous and therefore has the right. They know the history can be colored, and then it would be several ``stories`` / ``truth``.

Two wrongs never make it right. Taking example of others brutalities (kings and people you have quoted - Hindu, Muslim, Christian, sikhs or otherwise) to negate Aurangzeb`s brutality is one thing, but it is beyond realms of rationality to justify your admiration for one of these brutals, because other contemporaries did too.

Certainly, you must admire Prithvi Raj Chauhan to proudly carry Chauhan as your family name. Without a doubt you know how his life was ended. Unless there is a revised version of his killing that has been passed down to you through the folklore.

Would you not call the way his life was ended as inhuman brutality? Do you really believe that his true family members or descendents will admire anyone or the community who brutally ended Prithvi Raj Chauhan`s life.

I am unable to understand this contradiction among Muslim Rajputs. On one hand they adore or at the very least accept the brutes and on the other hand they also hold on dear to Rajput roots to proudly show in their last names.

To me brutality and cruelity are just what these names suggest. One person or community brutality or cruelity over the other cannot be superior and therefore justified / accepted, unless the person / community who justifies had benefitted and enjoyed the fruits of such brutality / cruelities.

Anil

Kardesh #237,

The transfer of population between India and Pakistan took over 4 years (1947-1951). The massacres of population must have been limited to the years of 1947 and 1948. My contention is however that Pakistan (west pakistan at the time) essentially ensured that all of its provinces were rid of minority population (Hindus and Sikhs) in those 4 years. How this was accomplished is not my concern.

Some Indian provinces also underwent a similar kind of ethinc cleansing. However, as a whole India retained the majority of its minority population whereas Pakistan did not. Same as is the case with Bangladesh. Even now the Hindu population in Bangladesh population has come down to 10% from around 30% in 1947. Whereas the Indian Muslim population has risen from around 15% in 1947 to around 18% now.

This clearly indicates the kind of ethnic cleansing Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh have performed on their minority populations.

On top of that, we have many Pakistanis like HP and Tahmed gloating that nothing like Gujarat ever took place in Pakistan. What right do they have to gloat? My whole contention has been that when you have effectively rid your country of minorities with what logic can you claim that you are better than India in the treatment of minorities. You went and declared your country to be Islamic and relegated non-muslims to a secondary status. And yet Pakistanis have the gall to gloat?

Now both HP and Tahmed are conveniently absent from this board. I am sure they will bring up Gujarat again to go on with their pretension.

Re: # 256


``Peter the Great was chopping heads in Russia``

I guess you are talking about the streltsy. But there is no comparison between the two. What Peter did to the Russian empore Aurangi did exactly the opposite to the Moghal Empire. There is a wide difference in the personalities too. Peter wanted the russians to reform become more Westernised whereas Aurangi wanted to take the Empire back to the medieval times (conservatism).

kardesh:

Of all your talk of Aurangis courage and military achievements, his policies and strategies dealt a death knell to the once mighty Moghals. He antagonised and alienated many people. Intoducing Jazia, inflaming the passions of the peaceful Sikhs, screwing up with the Marathas. He was so ineffectual that even after the death of Shivaji, he was not able to control the rag-tag army of the Marathas. He came all the way down to Deccan to subjugate them. In the end lies buried in their land. Thanks to Aurangi the Moghals decayed. Otherwise they could have stayed for a long time.

Re: # 256

`If my family is the one that converted and if we say that the reason for our conversion was the devotion and loyalty to Aurangzeb for his bravey and courage``

Ever heard of Rana Pratap of Mewar, Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer? I never thought I would hear such a statement for a proud Rajput. I am disappointed :(

kardesh, i have a huge respect for aurangzeb based on my reading of war of succession history as an able emperor (sp. as compared rundibaz shuja or charasi dara shikoh). there was something unique about mr Zeb as compared to his ancestors. he was keen on religious conversion. his ancestors were very happy to party with rajputs etc without demanding conversions, so much so that boys born to rajput princess did not have circumcision ceremony done on them. this is court documented stuff. Alamgir A`zeb however had a big incentive plan by which he would award large Mansabdari (knighthoods) based on conversions. It was common in India to steal knights from other courts by awarding larger mansabdari, but A`Zeb also insisted on conversion. There are several famous examples, one is of a Bundelkhandi Prince, and other of Chief of Staff of Shivaji who joined dilli sultanat and was converted along with his kabila and sent to peshawar and he felt cheatd. he later returned to his land and was re-converted back to hindu (a rare thing).

Ajeya #252, {``MAIN POINT „» The difference is QUALITATIVE, NOT QUANTITATIVE.
Killing your cousin IN A BATTLE is one thing, killing UNARMED PRISONERS (and many thousands of them) IS QUITE ANOTHER. Let alone enslaving (including sexual slavery) countless women and children. NOT THE MAIN POINT „»
People change their stories once they are converted. ALL HINDUS, especially those at the receiving end, WERE DEATHLY AFRAID OF THAT MONSTER ALSO KNOWN AS AURANGEZEB. ``}

Ajeya,
I am not evading the issue or sidestepping the main point. I agree that Muslims, throughout history, did their part to raise both the quantity and quality of slaughter, killing, torture, kidnapping, and enslavement. The cruelty of Muslim rulers and Muslims armies was most often demonstrated against fellow Muslims - Shia/Sunni, Sunni/Sunni, Arab/non-Arab, Punjabi/Bengali, Pathan/Mohajir, and so on.

But Muslims were not unique in their behavrior. There are others who equalled if not surpassed them in cruelty - Egyptians, Assyrians, Jews of the Old Testament, Romans, Persians, Crusaders, Mongols, Spanish Conquistadores, British, Sikhs, Nazi Germans, 1947 riots among Hindu, Muslim, Sikh Punjabis, Chinese Communists, Khmer Rouge, Americans (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Vietnam, now Iraq). I am sure I missed several notorious killers. Enslavement of women, children POWs and slaughtering of captured soldiers was performed by many cruel conquerors - even in India. The untouchables of India did not attain their position through peaceful negotiations. There are many instances of mass slaughters in Indian history - 1947 Punjab, Bihar and 2002 Gujarat are merely the latest. In between there were Jubbulpore, Bombay, and Ahmedabad over and over again.

On Aurgangzeb, your comment that once converted people change their stories is quite presumptuous. If my family is the one that converted and if we say that the reason for our conversion was the devotion and loyalty to Aurangzeb for his bravey and courage, then who has the right to question our motives? I don`t think that Aurangzeb would have been cruel and forceful to his own ``bodyguards`` those sworn to defend him - that`s not wise.
Now, if Aurangzeb was cruel and a ``monster,`` I am sure that you can build a case, but please don`t force your viewpoint as OUR motives. Of course, he fought battles, killed his own brothers, imprisoned his own father, so there must be a strong case about his compassion. On the other hand, in the late 17th century and early 18th century, there were other rulers just as active. Charles lost his head in England. The sixty year war raged in Central Europe, the Turks were all over Eastern and Central Europe, Peter the Great was chopping heads in Russia, Nadir Shah was roaming in Persia and India, and the slave trade was booming. I think Aurangzeb fit in quite well with his contemporaries. That, my friend, is my point.

Ref: Harish Hyd`s post

Dear sir,

Please don`t flatter yourself. You ran away from the Stuka board with your tail between your legs and your grandiose claims of ``hanging people from a lamp post by their balls`` is laughable to say the least... if you could do so, you would have stayed on the stuka board.

Your abuses, insults and immature ``comebacks`` like ``failed lawyer`` and ``Yasser`` will not deter me from speaking the truth and exposing your bigotry.

#250 by rsridhar on April 20, 2005 8:59pm PT
re: Cayenne`s post


...........Give it up Sridhar.You traded and be content with your lot.Atleast i am in my own country.You could be thrown out of there at some point in time.If not now, another civil war, this time over colour/race can erupt in ten years time.That`s not too long a time.Just thirty years ago one couldn`t walk the streets of detroit for fear of being sniped at by the `Black Panthers`.You`re not born there.Naturalization or residence can be taken away as easily as it is given.You could be heading home sometime in the near future.You cannot guarantee that you will stay in the US forever.I wish you well, though.

#217 by Yasser

[I don`t understand why you want to bring it up on this board that has nothing to do with it.]

It is a pathetic, yet funny sight to see you dodge and weave your way out of trying to answer my question. Your posts are now so predictable. I can see you squirm uncomfortably in front of your computer screen and I`m beginning to feel so sorry for you, I feel like letting you off the hook. Belatedly and under pressure, you have realized that each one can have his own reading of history. So the next time you wildly pounce upon something, remember, there are people who can hang you on to the lamp post by your balls.

Re: kardesh #239

Kardesh,

I am getting the feeling that you are intentionally sidestepping the issue.

Here¡¦s the MAIN POINT, FOR THE LAST TIME:

MAIN POINT „» The difference is QUALITATIVE, NOT QUANTITATIVE.
Killing your cousin IN A BATTLE is one thing, killing UNARMED PRISONERS (and many thousands of them) IS QUITE ANOTHER. Let alone enslaving (including sexual slavery) countless women and children.

NOT THE MAIN POINT „»

[They fought against Muslim invasions and during the time of Aurangzeb, they converted to Islam. This was done as a sign of devotion to Aurangzeb, who is held in the greatest esteem for his bravery and love of Rajputs in my family.]

People change their stories once they are converted. ALL HINDUS, especially those at the receiving end, WERE DEATHLY AFRAID OF THAT MONSTER ALSO KNOWN AS AURANGEZEB.

I could cite VOLUMES of evidence of his monstrosities. He was a monster to put many monsters to shame. What they had was fear, not devotion.

IN ANY CASE, it seems to me that you will keep bobbing and weaving and evading the main issue. I now understand about Harimau. When I look at the archives, I see him trying to argue with you guys, but now I think he gave up. Now he just comes in with a couple of sarcastic punchlines and leaves.

I give up too. It¡¦s like fighting with the air. And I think I understand. Because if you start thinking rationally, uncomfortable questions might come up that you may not be willing to face. On this issue, as well as other, more basic ones. So for you, that is not an option.

Ciao.

re:#248 by MaheshG2
I am not sure if u were around when this guy who calls himself Prashant used to interact on chowk as Gujjubania. I had a long interaction with him on similar lines at that time.
The guy was very abusive then, as he is now.
Sridhar