Tipu Sultan a symbol of communal harmony,’ says Rahul Gandhi

[Hamza913]

It does not matter what anybody says, what does the FACTS say ?

Tyranny cannot be objectively measured for every part in the region. There are no facts involved, only opinions.

 

[Advaitagrata]

Tyranny cannot be objectively measured for every part in the region. There are no facts involved, only opinions.

OF COURSE it can be objectively measured and for every part of the region and for every age.

And History is all about Facts, not opinions.

 

[Hamza913]

OF COURSE it can be objectively measured and for every part of the region and for every age.

And History is all about Facts, not opinions.

No, it really can't.

For example, Aurangzeb is considered tyrannical by some because he launched large campaigns of military conquest and brutally suppressed numerous rebellions.

Others consider the fact that he became the richest man the world, hired more Hindus into his administration than any previous Mughal ruler, and spearheaded the Mughal Empire to producing 1/4 of the worlds GDP as proving he was one of the greatest rulers the region has ever seen.

 

[Green Arrow]

Very well said! If only people in the subcontinent understood this. Both the "taking back control side", and the "thousand years rule" one.

But then why Nizam or Marhatta did not put up the fight and resistance against the British like Tipu did? There was clearly some kind of understanding between British and nizam or marhatta again the Tipu. British footprints were stamped on British India that day when Tipu died.

 

[Hamza913]

LOL.... that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. :lo:

Aurangzeb is considered Tyrannical because he imposed Additional taxes on Hindus, made celebrating of Hindu festivals Illegal, Destroyed important Hindu temples, and tortured people while forcing them to convert. Many choose to die rather than convert, e.g. Guru Tegh Bahadur and Maharaj Shambaji and pandit Kavi Kalash.

He hired more muslims into his administration than hindus, more than any other mughal ruler. He destroyed all farms and the trees of the Deccan due to his failure to defeat the Marathas, and this created a 3-year famine, between 1662 and 1665, covering his kingdom and the maratha kingdom.

At least 3 MILLION people died in the Famine alone. A million more must have died in the wars he started.

The economy prospered DESPITE him, not because of him.

I guarantee you would love him if he was a Hindu.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sure he did, the Maratha's hated tipu sultan as he was the Auranzeb of the south, equal in his hate for non muslims and with an equal zeal for conversion.

Th Nizam did not considered him an high class Ashraf, but a low class convert Ajlaf.

The liberation of Mysore by this effort, paved way for the Hindu King wadiyar dynasty, to regain his throne in Mysore and reestablish Hindu Swaraj in the South. Its one of the best hings that happened to south India.

I read (with clinical interest) the gush of rage that follows; a good example why half-educated idiots should not be left loose to wander around in strange disciplines, or to offer their opinions under the guise of making some kind of historical or sociological sense.

How convenient to brush off the evils of Islamic invasion and the following destruction of Hindu life, Hindu pride, desecration of our temples, our values, the selling of our women and children as slaves and the mutilation of our social fabric , as "man of his times".

Were these not features of those times, or were these repeated and carried forward into the future? What were others doing? There were no Hindu kingdoms, except the predatory Marathas, whose names still live on in the lands that they raided, with pillage and plunder that you seem to assign as monopolies to their enemies, the effete Rajputs, who had either been the collaborators of the Mughals in imperium, or a drug-sodden nobility that knew very little other than to gallop in the general direction of the enemy, and the handful of principalities in Kerala, and, the great exceptions, the Ahoms and the Gorkhas. Who else? So what do we compare with Tipu?

We are speaking of Europe, for instance, during the era of Napoleon, of the harsh rule of the Tsars in Russia; we are speaking of China under the Qing, kicked around by the Europeans, and subjecting its own people to the worst of oppression; of Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate; of the United States recovering from the burning of its capital and its presidential residence, and prospering through the efforts of thousands of slaves. Who were the bright torches of progressive, tolerant views?

When nothing could be further from the truth. His actions were not of "man of his time", but of an "Islamic man of this time". No Hindu king ever did even a fraction of the despicable actions of this bigot.

Could it be because there were no Hindu kings left during the period?

Its only the perverted communist mind who will seeks to obfuscate the truth, and attempt to draw a false equivalence will now spin up stories of "destruction of buddism by hindus". (don't tell me you hate communist)

I don't have to say it; it's on record.

In fact, Hindu kings were so open minded and non racist, that when Pallava (south India) King Parameshvaravarman (728-731 CE) a descendant of Simhavishnu, was killed in war by chalukyan king Vikramaditya II, and was without a heir, the delegation of Nobles and military leaders sent scholars to Vietnam where distant relatives of the kanchi pallav's ruled. A young boy named Pallavamalla was selected and crowned King Nandivarman II. Pallavamalla ruled for the next 64 years uninterrupted.

Only a thundering idiot would trot out an instance around a millennium earlier to make his point. At that time of Parameshvaravarman, 728 BC, the Roman Empire had just fallen; Islam had yet to build its empire. So why are you citing this long-distant example, unless it is because you could find nothing to glorify at any time in between?

Compare that to Hyder Ali and tipu sultan who not only betrayed the Wadiyar king who hired him, but also ketp him under permanent house arrest to be brought out only during Dussara. The only reason he was not killed was because, that would have angered the local population to rise in protest against them and destroy their ambition.

These two incidences show's clearly the difference between the Hindu "men of the time" and the muslim counter part.

Right. What a sharp contrast to the Peshwa, with regard to Shivaji's descendants. No similarity at all, no Sirree!

And THIS is the reason of my contempt for people like you, who only know communist and british history and continue to deliberately spread lies feeling confident in your own ignorance and barely covered contempt to Hindus and Hinduism.

Best said on a couch, to a professional with a notebook.

 

[Hamza913]

What worth does the guarantee of a pakistani hold ? its worthless. So stick to something more tangible.

You're just upset over the one thousand year Muslim domination of your people.

Anyway, I really wouldn't say that if I were you, Hindustanis aren't exactly a valued community.

 

[SrNair]

Adolphus isn't quite as relevant to us.

Tipu Sultan is also not relevant to you.Even though a religious bigot,he was a South Indian.Live us a Kannadiga ,die as Kannadiga .Pakistan is not even remotely connected to him.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Even the predatory Marathas did not destroy mosques or killed civilians or forced them to convert. They raided the land ruled by the Mughals and pillaged and plundered it for money, but did not line up and kill civilians.

Neither did the Mughals, except for enemies who had refused an offer of terms if they surrendered, and who resisted with all their might. Nor was it a practice; we have to look for the atrocities of the Brahmin renegade, Kalapahar, or to the Nawabs in the Punjab, faced by the relentless enmity of the tribes of the Punjab, for such wholesale barbarism.

As for the "effete" Rajputs, they were political allies of the Mughals, but once aurangzeb started destroying temples, they became the enemies of Aurangzeb. In fact, Raja Jai singh who negotiated the treaty with Shivaji also promised his protection in the Mughal court. When Aurangzeb arrested Shivaji in the Delhi court, it was Jai Singh who stood up to Aurangzeb and defend shivaji and later helped shivaji escape. Aurangzeb demoted jain singh for this treachery and set him to fight the Ahoms.

Demoted? He never lost his mansabdari rank. The Ahoms were the last undefeated Hindu kings remaining, except the rulers of postage stamp sized principalities in Kerala, and it is difficult to understand a disgraced general being given this as a punishment posting. Accounts of the battles that followed make it clear that Jai Singh did not lack for resources; he was defeated by Ahom tactics, not by being starved of resource.

Imagine a bengali having the gall to call the Rjaputs "effete".

Yeah, imagine. This is why you are not fit to comment on matters relating to history, most particularly the history of the Tri-Partite Rivalry, or the history of the British use of this race, or the history of the East Bengal Regiment under Pakistani leadership.

Why do I need to compare him to the Mongols or eve worse tyrant to make him look and fell good ? I will compare him to the Hindu values of Hindu kings who ruled this land and judge him on those standards.

Not compare him with other tyrants, in the glib hope of making him look better.

There WERE no Hindu kings of any power; we have gone over this ground before, and it is inevitable that you have to revert to some mythical standard of comparison that did not exist.

So if there were no Hindu kings, that gives tipu sultan to murder and torture hindus and xtians ? What a foul idea. Something which only someone with an equally foul mind, could come up with.

The kind of mind caught in a jam is the mind devoid of logic. The point was that he was not better or worse than others, and your fanciful construct of a noble-minded Hindu ideal king is pure fiction. The point is that all kings behaved like that at that time. Or worse.

The Hindus were more civilized a 1000 years back, than the Islamic invaders a 1000 years later. THAT is the point which is proved by this

Clearly irrelevant. The same Hindu kings that you glorify from the 8th and 9th centuries, to take you literally at your word, were nowhere near as civilised as the Mauryas. So should we therefore depreciate them due to the existence of the Mauryas?

You could not be more wrong.

Peshwa Ramchandra Pant who fought on behalf of the Maratha and recaptured the broken maratha empire and ruled over it after being made Hukumatpanha, which literally meant "equal to the King", stepped down when asked and handed over the rule back to Rajaram.

THAT is the hindu ethos.

Same with Peshwa Parshuram Trimbak Kulkarni who was Pantpratinidhi, was loyal to Tarabai and never exceed his bound even though he was the ruler for all practical purpose.

It was Chatrapati Sahu who granted the power to command armies to the Peshwas. It was not taken by force. ON his death, it was Chatrapati Sahu who made the Peshwa.

The throne was not stolen like how Tipu sultan did.

Nobody was there to bear witness to the voluntary handing over of the power to the Peshwa, and it is disingenuous to take the example of the Peshwas at the weakest point of the Maratha Confederacy as representative behaviour. During their time, the Peshwas paid no regard to the Maharaja, none whatsoever.

Again, your opinions are worthless.

Stick to Facts.

Ironic, that.

 

[SQ8]

1. Lies, since the symbol of the Mysore Kingdom was the Gandaberunda, the two headed bird. Varaha was the symbol of the Vijaynagar empire which was destroyed more than century ago.

2. Tipus astrologers predicted that he could become an emperor if he performed some rituals. So he did, in Sree Ranganatha Swami Temple and made that donation.

3. The Hindu priest Srikanteshwara swamy of the famous temple in Nanjangud, in Mysuru district was also a noted ayurvedic expert. He was also a physician to Tipu. Tipu called him “Hakim Nanjunda".

Tipu Sultan’s royal elephant which suffered from eye problems had lost its eye sight. Tipu was told about the glory of Srikanteshwara at Nanjangud temple that one’s wishes would be fulfilled if one offered prayers to the lord with all devotion. He was advised by the priests of the temple, to bathe the elephant in River Kapila and wipe its eyes with the river water used for the abhishekam of Lord Srikanteshwara for one mandala that is 48 days. To his surprise, the elephant regained its sight.

That is how he donated that shiv ling.

4. Tipu was a VERY superstitious man. He always conducted religious rituals and wore apotropaic objects and trinkets—Hindu as well as Islamic—either to avert a disaster or to attain success in his undertakings. He placed great emphasis on his dreams and has a book written that details his dreams.

Tipu even sported a gold ring etched with the name of the Hindu God Rama—a gift from the Guru of the Sringeri Math. But he had no qualms about destroying the Harihareswara temple at Harihar, the Varahaswami temple at Srirangapatnam, and the Odakaraya temple at Hospet.

Tipu Sultan’s ceremonial sword bears an unabashed admission inscribed on it: “My victorious sabre is lightning for the destruction of the unbelievers.”

But at the same time, before his final war with the british, He ordered for all the ceremonies prescribed by the Brahmins to be duly performed, and having given them presents, requested their prayers for the prosperity of his government. He also ordered to be slaughtered two elephants with all their golden trappings, and he then had large sums of gold mohurs distributed among the beggars.

His hate for non musilms was such that he even threw out Ahmadeias from his kingdom.

The Qadiyanis did not exist till the 20th century you utter nincumpoop.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani was born 40+ years after the death of Tipu Sultan.

Such dishonest crap from your mind only exemplifies what an utter bigoted piece of fecal matter resides in what you call a brain.

I don’t want your kind on our forum.

 

[Hamza913]

Tipu Sultan is also not relevant to you.Even though a religious bigot,he was a South Indian.Live us a Kannadiga ,die as Kannadiga .Pakistan is not even remotely connected to him.

He fought against the British who tried to conquer the region, he's very relevant.

It's funny how people like you will only scream Akhand Bharat when it suits you lol.

 

[SrNair]

He fought against the British who tried to conquer the region, he's very relevant.

It's funny how people like you will only scream Akhand Bharat when it suits you lol.

So?

Who gives an eff about Akhand Bharat?

We wont allow anyone here

 

[Pakistani E]

Asalamu Alaikum

Certain rulers very obviously used religion for their own personal gains, but many really were firm Muslims, e.g Aurangzeb Alamgir and Sikander Shah Mir.

However, for most it is rather difficult to tell, with contradictory reports.

Waalaikum Asalam. I don't disagree with you there, I find all humans use religion on certain things and ignore its commandments in others. Human nature really, can't fault the rulers alone in this.

But then why Nizam or Marhatta did not put up the fight and resistance against the British like Tipu did? There was clearly some kind of understanding between British and nizam or marhatta again the Tipu. British footprints were stamped on British India that day when Tipu died.

Tipu Sultan gravitated towards the French camp for a reason. Do you truly believe that if the British had been ousted and the French allowed hegemony in South Asia, the roles would be any different for smaller kingdoms?

Regardless, I have great respect for Tipu Sultan for continuing to fight to maintain independence, which as you point out, other rulers sacrificed for personal rule.

 

[Hamza913]

So?

Who gives an eff about Akhand Bharat?

We wont allow anyone here

He was also Muslim, that's enough for me to take him as a hero. Islam before ethnicity.

You guys do, judging from the Hindustanis I've met.

 

[Green Arrow]

Waalaikum Asalam. I don't disagree with you there, I find all humans use religion on certain things and ignore its commandments in others. Human nature really, can't fault the rulers alone in this.



Tipu Sultan gravitated towards the French camp for a reason. Do you truly believe that if the British had been ousted and the French allowed hegemony in South Asia, the roles would be any different for smaller kingdoms?

Regardless, I have great respect for Tipu Sultan for continuing to fight to maintain independence, which as you point out, other rulers sacrificed for personal rule.

Well you can not compare the french military presence in India with the British might in india. French hegemony in India was totally out of question and Tipu's call for help to france or Afghan ruler was a diplomatic or politiacal move.