For the naive and self-blinded....

[Joe Shearer]

"from every post of yours, every smart quip, every droll observation" - Thanks again sire for the kind words. But it is where your judgement that got clouded there. I am a Saffron person(that's more true literally - Kashmiri cuisine) - from head to toe, and I have never denied that. My 'About Me' remains unchanged right from the beginning. I am neither confused, not hiding behind what can best be called diplomatic niceties.

Probably Aibak had more than 'absolutely nothing' to do with the Nalanda 'complex' (sic).
1. Revived Nalanda University invites global architects for its buildings - The Times of India -
2. The legacy of wisdom
3. Nobel laureate sets date for Nalanda
4. Bakhtiyar Khilji - Nalanda university - Historum - History Forums
5. Revived Nalanda varsity to start functioning by February-end - The Hindu

Aibak, I repeat, had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Nalanda complex. I had started earlier by speculating that engaging with your kind of intellect would be possible on factual grounds, if nothing else. This very immature thought completely omitted to take into account the limited intellect that breeds a certain kind of rigid and bigoted mental posture. Consider the following:

No less than five citations were offered, proposing to contradict the statement of Aibak's non-involvement. All the five say the same uniform thing, that Bakhtiyar Khilji was a general of Aibak's. The implication being that he fought to Aibak's plans, that he was instructed by Aibak, that his actions were the execution of orders issued by Aibak.

Horse-feathers.

None of the citations have any value in themselves. All accounts of this incident are drawn from Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, an account of the actions of the Ghurids, and of their designated successors in India, the Turkish Sultans Aibak and Iltutmish. It was composed by Minhaj-i-Siraj, a qazi under Nasiruddin, Balban's son-in-law and predecessor. The facts are clearly laid out in the Tabaqat:

• Bakhtiyar Khilji had a minor post in Ghor;
• He migrated to Delhi to seek a position under Aibak, and was rejected;
• He then travelled to Budaun, a centre of the power of the Turks, and tried to get a job there. He was almost rejected again, by Aibak's field commander, but got a minor position;
• This wasn't big enough or good enough, so Bakhtiyar Khilji went on still further, to Oudh. At last, there, in that remote provincial outpost, faced with an unconquered Bihar, and the still remnant power of the last of the Sena dynasty in Bengal, he was given lands and appanages, and built a fanatic crew of raiders with that money;
• He started raiding Bihar in a series of daring raids;
• In one of these, he sacked Nalanda, massacring the inhabitants, turning the university into a catacomb;
• It was then, in 1203, that he gained notice in the royal court at Delhi.

Sanctimonious thinking, that misleads the thinker into taking shallow positions, turn me off, to be honest. The left has failed, intellectually, and has left us disillusioned and sceptical; there is certainly nothing on the right to admire instead, as it appears from the present instances available.

I would honestly not consider it a 'wasted' exercise. Just look at the thread and the prevailing national opinion. I can sympathize and even appreciate your concerns but can't agree with them. I value a check, a rein that prevents excesses, in that regard, precisely why I will always welcome opposing thoughts. But sanctimonious thinking does turn me off, to be honest.

"what an unfortunate mistake" - perhaps you had a preconceived notion that all Hindutvadis are uncultured and devoid of intellect. It should not be a surprise that intellectual pursuits are no longer a leftist monopoly(no, I am not calling you one, please)

I only found this entire discussion slightly amusing, chuckling at the bygone days of India's vaunted Nehruvian socialism and reinforced reverse-discrimination as an antidote to discrimination! It does shock me sometimes when Shourie says and Maroof Raza agrees, how long can an iron fence protect a tree from termites! (don't assume anything pls)

With all due respect, I would like to read any book or publication that you (I assume) have authored. I have survived Mani Shankar Iyer's 'A Secular Fundamentalist'. I am sure I can read yours.

That said - I expected a point to point rebuttal or something of more value after such a long period of absence. Instead what I got what a personal attack, literally an attempt at character assassination. You are among the folks I do respect, and in this regard, if I consider this a counter argument, I admit I have been let down.

Try not to be let down. There is no cause. You have not done your homework, and in the contempt that attracts lack of application in a professional pedagogue, you have seen, with no cause, personal attacks and attempts at character assassination. A different set of words might help: try character evaluation and disappointment. Go back to your books, go back to your original premises, get rid of the herbal integument over your mind and try to restore clarity to your thought.

@Spring Onion - Is one of my dearest members, so thanks.

@Dillinger 's comments you misunderstood, I guess.

@Roybot @ExtraOdinary @Hyperion @Ravi Nair @chak de INDIA @levina@JanjaWeed

You forgot the termagant. How chauvinist.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Was'nt the Qutb complex in Delhi commissioned by Aibak, which involved demolition of Jain/Hindu temples? Even if Bakhtiyar had not been handed express orders by his master to ransack Nalanda, I doubt Aibak would have shed a tear considering he himself was an iconoclast.

Quite right, on both counts, but that still does not amount to Bakhtiyar Khilji acting under the orders of the Sultan. We already know that his actions brought him into the public eye, and to the attention of the royal court at Delhi. That doesn't mean that his earlier actions were to orders.

Please read Joe's statement above. He did destroy it but had 'Superior Orders'. As for iconoclasm, the destroyed temples don't lie.




Thanks for the kind words. Ok, superior's orders it is. In that case this is a controversial point of view, especially after the Nuremburg tribunals. Of course, I won't impose modern morality to medieval times, but then let's agree to disagree.

Amusing.

You have turned my statement on its head, and are now pretending that I said the opposite of what I did.

The religious right has no arguments of its own, but depends on distorting the arguments or positions of those who oppose it.

And, on a minor but nevertheless amusing note, as usual, they are unconsciously sycophants of the western intellectual. So the Nuremberg trials, and the overwhelming Anglo-American majority is cited, but not the dissenting note; this note has the obvious disadvantage that it is not by one of the white master-race, so Hindutva lackeys lack respect for it.

For those reading this who are not Hindutva lackeys, read about it here:

If the Nuremberg Laws were Applied..., by Noam Chomsky (Talk delivered around 1990)

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Quite right, on both counts, but that still does not amount to Bakhtiyar Khilji acting under the orders of the Sultan. We already know that his actions brought him into the public eye, and to the attention of the royal court at Delhi. That doesn't mean that his earlier actions were to orders.

Amusing.

You have turned my statement on its head, and are now pretending that I said the opposite of what I did.

The religious right has no arguments of its own, but depends on distorting the arguments or positions of those who oppose it.

And, on a minor but nevertheless amusing note, as usual, they are unconsciously sycophants of the western intellectual. So the Nuremberg trials, and the overwhelming Anglo-American majority is cited, but not the dissenting note; this note has the obvious disadvantage that it is not by one of the white master-race, so Hindutva lackeys lack respect for it.

For those reading this who are not Hindutva lackeys, read about it here:

1. Hey - I am no historian. I just read what you write.

2.

In one of these, he sacked Nalanda, massacring the inhabitants, turning the university into a catacomb

Thanks - so it was not Aibak but Khilji who did it. Got it.

3. What was the relationship between Aibak and Khilji? I need to know because Aibak comes up here as well -
NALANDA MAHAVIHARA ARYA VIKSHU SANGHASYA | Pilgrimage Blog on Speakingtree.in
Ornament in Indian Architecture - Margaret Prosser Allen - Google Books

Rather confusing.

The religious right has no arguments of its own, but depends on distorting the arguments or positions of those who oppose it.

I am from the ir-religious right, to be literally correct.

unconsciously sycophants of the western intellectual. So the Nuremberg trials, and the overwhelming Anglo-American majority is cited, but not the dissenting note; this note has the obvious disadvantage that it is not by one of the white master-race, so Hindutva lackeys lack respect for it.

Sycophant? Just for citing Nuremberg trials? By that logic every student passing out of any school, college or university anywhere in the world is one. Not a fair argument.

Besides your offensive on my character continues unabated.(Hindutva lackey)

I agree with Chomsky's speech on the trials, There is nothing in it for even a 'Hindutva lackey' to not like.

The left has failed, intellectually, and has left us disillusioned and sceptical;

Truly unfortunate and sad.

You forgot the termagant. How chauvinist.

Haha... good one.

 

[Joe Shearer]

1. Hey - I am no historian. I just read what you write.

I wrote left to right. It is interesting that you choose to read it right to left. Consider the obligatory socially satisficing smiley to be here.

2. Thanks - so it was not Aibak but Khilji who did it. Got it.

....and so to move on....

3. What was the relationship between Aibak and Khilji? I need to know because Aibak comes up here as well -
NALANDA MAHAVIHARA ARYA VIKSHU SANGHASYA | Pilgrimage Blog on Speakingtree.in
Ornament in Indian Architecture - Margaret Prosser Allen - Google Books

Rather confusing.

It says,"....the final obituary was committed by Bakhtiyar Khilji, one of the generals of Qutb-ud-din Aibak in the year of 1193."

What, precisely, is the difference between this latest citation, and your earlier five? Why does it lead to fresh questions in your mind? What is the incremental information about the relationship between a determinedly centralising Sultan, and his loose-cannon distant provincial governor?

Why, finally, must I be dragged through every blog that your wretched search engine uncovers, when the original source has been mentioned in clear prose? Is it too much to ask that when writing on historical topics, the elementary task of referring to the appropriate historical source should be used (a blog from a newspaper is not an appropriate historical source)?

The relationship was one of indifference born out of ignorance before 1203, one of interest, even of excitement, after 1203. The destruction of Nalanda was a matter of no concern to the iconoclastic Aibak, the acquisition of Bihar, then of parts of western Bengal, was.

I am from the ir-religious right, to be literally correct.

Really? And this is also descriptive of that literal correction :

I am a Saffron person(that's more true literally - Kashmiri cuisine) - from head to toe, and I have never denied that. My 'About Me' remains unchanged right from the beginning. I am neither confused, not hiding behind what can best be called diplomatic niceties.

So now saffron is equated to irreligious? Fascinating.

Sycophant? Just for citing Nuremberg trials? By that logic every student passing out of any school, college or university anywhere in the world is one. Not a fair argument.

Besides your offensive on my character continues unabated.(Hindutva lackey)

I agree with Chomsky's speech on the trials, There is nothing in it for even a 'Hindutva lackey' to not like.

Truly unfortunate and sad.


Haha... good one.

Let me explain once again.

The stock in trade, of both the second type of revisionist historians and the Hindutva interpreters alike, is a dependence on an originally Western/European set of constructs when making their own arguments for or against a subject.

This approach studiously ignores any Indian contribution to the subject under discussion unless it can be conveniently described as Leftist/Marxist, again, amusingly, using the western context to denigrate an argument, or as neo-colonial, in which case the western context is all too drearily apparent. It is for this reason, no other, that I look on these counter-dependent characters as lackeyish in essence.

The sycophancy consists of an Indian commentator citing the Nuremberg trials and ignoring the contribution of the only Indian judge on the tribunal, probably due to ignorance of both the detailed contents of the trial judgements, as well as of the striking fact that the only judge in that tribunal with a background in international law was that lone Indian. The sycophancy consists of adopting the western view, slavishly, in lackeyish manner, ignoring the resolute refutation of the majority stand by the dissenting (Indian) judge.

Chomsky's "speech" is important not because it is Chomsky's speech, and, as is now depressingly familiar, you have missed the point again. It is important because it emphasises, sadly a point clearly lost to your skimming of the content and the approach, the dissenting argument, and the nature of the argument, as well as the (striking? am I using that adjective too often?) fact that the dissent was by a subject of a colonial power, speaking out against the entire panel.

It was not the rejection of the German, or more correctly, Prussian precept "Befehl ist Befehl" that is important alone, although in its context and your use of it is legitimate; also of importance, and surprisingly omitted in your reference to the trials and the judgements, is the dissenting opinion, which implicitly criminalises the entire western leadership, and brings the authority of existing international law to bear on the behaviour and conclusions of the majority of the judges.

This is not an offensive against an individual, yourself, but against the entire school of derivative thought to which you apparently belong.

So stop wallowing in self-pity, and take a long, hard look at your intellectual pretensions, not to mention your herd mentality; see them for what they are.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

wretched search engine uncovers

That's Google. In today's world Google is God. Omnipresent, Omniscient, all powerful.

So now saffron is equated to irreligious

Saffron is just a color. So is orange, green and blue. Saffron has other religious and spiritual relevance as well though. But in any case I need to justify my personal preferences in detail. One statement should suffice, regardless of it's acceptability.

The stock in trade, of both the second type of revisionist historians and the Hindutva interpreters alike, is a dependence on an originally Western/European set of constructs when making their own arguments for or against a subject.

Not at all. I strongly disagree that I am heavily influenced by Western thinkers. Savarkar is one of my primary inspirations. Add @Dillinger to that. There are many others - including Shourie, Jaitley, Deendayal, etc There are practically no Western thinkers that I relate to.

surprisingly omitted in your reference to the trials and the judgements, is the dissenting opinion, which implicitly criminalises the entire western leadership

Yes, I got the point - it criminalizes the entire Western leadership - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I understood that. Perhaps you also referred to Radhabinod Pal, but that was the IMT for the Far East. But even then in the end - Churchill went free(though losing power), Stalin went back to his dacha etc while Ribbentrops and Jodls were hanged. It's not a fair world, sire.

This is not an offensive against an individual, yourself, but against the entire school of derivative thought to which you apparently belong

I don't subscribe to any particular school of though. Thanks for including - 'apparently'.

So stop wallowing in self-pity, and take a long, hard look at your intellectual pretensions, not to mention your herd mentality; see them for what they are.

Sure I will examine and introspect - thanks, but let me assure you - there is no self pity here, neither is there any 'herd mentality' either. Such judgements are within your right but entire subjective in nature.

Let's just value differing opinions, please. It's not necessary that one has to subscribe to one particular line of thinking or be banished into 'the herd'.

 

[fatman17]

 

[bronxbull]

Looks like Joe Shearer is still giving the Time Machine view of events.

 

[Android]

After the Law | Economic and Political Weekly

If being naive and self blinded means choosing Modi over the likes of Gandhis, Commies, Kejirival, Mamata, Laloo, Mulayam etc then I am happy being one. Rather than becoming smart and enlightened by voting for Cong, CPM, SP, TMC etc.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If being naive and self blinded means choosing Modi over the likes of Gandhis, Commies, Kejirival, Mamata, Laloo, Mulayam etc then I am happy being one. Rather than becoming smart and enlightened by voting for Cong, CPM, SP, TMC etc.

Did you even bother to read the article?

Looks like Joe Shearer is still giving the Time Machine view of events.

Read post #141.

Children should be seen, not heard.

 

[anonymus]

View attachment 26561

@fatman17

You probably could not see the obvious hypocrisy in the quote that you have posted. Marxists, who are champion genociders and mass murders considers only Marx's, Engel's and Mao's teachings as elucidated in Das capital, Communist manifesto, Critique of gotha program and Red book as final divine words.For them a Utilitarian, Liberal, Libertarian and free market advocated are not political opponents who have based their views on well reasoned logic but enemies of people who need to be exterminated.


When the particular poet who incidentally is also a marxist rants against political illiteracy, he is not ranting against political illiteracy in general but illiteracy towards his favoured political view which vilifies capitalists.