Re: The Truth is?
by Sanjay Sawant on Sep 09, 2009 12:52 PM Permalink
My dear FREIND!!! this land is a land of hindus and hence it is Hindustan , but it does not take away the rights of any religion settled here.
Auranjeb was a tyrrant in his own ways, refer to his very own history.
The history shoud run throughj your mind like the blood flows in your body to keep one alive.
Because of current political situation in this land ,people tend to forget and tend to ignore the original facts of this land.
Its more evident from 15aug 1947 when British offered the idependence.
Re: Francois Gautier - A disciple of Sri Sri Ravi Shanker. Living
by Guest on Jan 30, 2009 06:59 PM Permalink
I agree....!! this stupid thought that they can change Indian history by posing asinine comments on Aurangazeb.....!! huh.. shameless Indians. But one thing i wanna say is .. there r still some Indians(Muslims,Hindus) who believe in Aurangazeb and they can produce genuine proofs.. I met some of them.
Re: Re: Francois Gautier - A disciple of Sri Sri Ravi Shanker. Li
by abhijit vohra on Feb 15, 2009 09:25 PM Permalink
Thereb is nothing to believe in Aurangzeb and his policy of hatred and sharia..He forced his faith on others and that was wrong..The truth is he did nt have any discendants(The Mughals are all gone)his believers are busy fighting with each other killing their brethren in Pakistan n afghnistan spreading terror..Thats Aurangzeb's policy.
really feeling sick after reading expert comments below contradicting what is known to all of us and what Mr Gautier has listed.
We all know that all musl!m rulers 'invaded' India and raped women, destroyed temples, applied jiziya (or whatever it is called) and still I see some Hindus (except some sane people like Sandeep Patil who has written in detail below) following the 'dhimmi' attitude which is seen abundance in todays India of manmohan singh, sonia, lalu, mulla-yam and other pseudo-secs.....
Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known.
Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.
Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant
A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.
It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.
While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.
Re: Akbar or Aurangzeb
by Sandeep Patil on Oct 02, 2008 08:26 PM Permalink
I am really touched by seeing your love and earnesty towards Aurangzeb, the Great(?) Until reading your comments, I did not know that the Islamic rulers (Aurangzeb being their pinnacle), were so loving and pious ones. I guess, they invaded India, for the well-being of the Natives itself!!! I have been hearing about countless genocides, plunders, ransacks done by Aurangzeb & co. But now I must trust that it was a false propaganda by some Hindu fanatics, isnt it? What is popularly known about Aurangzeb - razing the Kashi-vishweshwar temple, killing his own father and brother - Dara Shukoh must be totally false! There must have been some Hindu fanatic organization in those days also, who must have created this propaganda to defame, the holy Aurangzeb. isnt it?
He had lot of Hindu officials in his court, that shows his love to the natives. I had heard that when he used to set his Hindu generals on campaign, he made sure that another Muslim general will accompany him, since Aurangzeb never believed the Kafirs. But now I guess, he must be doing it in order to set the communal harmony between the Hindu's and Muslims.
I had also heard, that Aurganzeb's general (the highest military rank) Mirza Raja Jaysing (note - A Hindu !!!!) underwent slow poisoning by the Emperor, because he suspected his general would become too powerful for him. But now I dont have any doubt that he (and his likes) must have died natural deaths, and some anti-social elements of those times allegated
Re: Re: Akbar or Aurangzeb
by Sandeep Patil on Oct 02, 2008 08:38 PM Permalink
Sons of Aurangzeb - Akbar and Muajjam revolted against him - such a saintly figure. Aurangzeb himself was afraid of getting assassinated by his sons (as he had done same unto his father and brothers). For this reason, he used to always keep them as governors of some remote areas. As per the tradition of Islamic rulers, his sons started waiting/planning for their fathers death (correction in your post, you call this the Indian way that princes fight and kill each other after their kings death. I am ashamed to see a fellow indian quoting that "People kill their own family members for a piece or land or other property dispustes in India" - while this kind of activity was privilage of Islamic rulers in India). Well, so coming back to the point, I do not understand why sons of Aurangzeb could never understand the glory and saintlyhood of their father, and rather tried to revolt against him. The poor, helpless father then had to set some trecherous plots to leave them helpless, such that one of his Sons - Akbar - had to finally abscond to Iran.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Akbar or Aurangzeb
by Sandeep Patil on Oct 02, 2008 08:46 PM Permalink
Finally, the cruel assassination of Sambhaji (son of Shivaji). Sambhaji was first asked for getting converted to Islam - and he would be spared his life. Upon not submitting to this, his eyes were taken off, then tounge and finally faced a terrible death. But after reading your article, I see something is missing here. Aurangzeb, himself being so secular cannot do this. Had he been present at the scene, I am sure he would have stood in the way of Mughal soldiers, saying first kill me and then touch Sambhaji. Isnt it???
I think in coming days I will be able to read similar arguments - saying Britishes never did Jaliyanwala - for they had so many % of Indian people serving in their empire. (From %age, got an interesting thought - I never knew Shah-jahan and Aurangzeb too were management gurus - to watch their annual performances on the basis of %age of statastics!!!)
Re: Re: Re: Akbar or Aurangzeb
by Sandeep Patil on Oct 02, 2008 08:45 PM Permalink
Finally, the cruel assassination of Sambhaji (son of Shivaji). Sambhaji was first asked for getting converted to Islam - and he would be spared his life. Upon not submitting to this, his eyes were taken off, then tounge and finally faced a terrible death. But after reading your article, I see something is missing here. Aurangzeb, himself being so secular cannot do this. Had he been present at the scene, I am sure he would have stood in the way of Mughal soldiers, saying first kill me and then touch Sambhaji. Isnt it???
I think in coming days I will be able to read similar arguments - saying Britishes never did Jaliyanwala - for they had so many % of Indian people serving in their empire. (From %age, got an interesting thought - I never knew Shah-jahan and Aurangzeb too were management gurus - to watch their annual performances on the basis of %age of statastics!!!)
The aged Emperor, his father knew that his sons would fight for power after he died. This was the Mughal custom. Therefore, taking precaution, he divided his empire into four regions for each of them to rule. They all had their own government, army, etc. Dara was given governorship of Multan and Kabul in the extreme northwest. Shuja, the second son got Bengal the eastern most province. Aurangzeb was in Deccan in extreme south and Murad, the last son, had Gujerat in the west.
In early September 1657 CE, Shah Jahan fell ill. For a whole week, he was at the state of death. The report spread that the emperor was dead. Dara began acting as if he was emperor. Meanwhile, Shuja, who said that the Emperor had been poisoned by Dara, claimed himself emperor. Murad too, crowned himself Emperor and also struck coins with his name. Both, Shuja and Murad wrote letters to Aurangzeb for support against Dara. Aurangzeb strongly advised them not to start a civil war because their father was still alive and improving in health.
After much fighting, the administration of the empire passed into the hands of Aurangzeb. He looked upon power as a mean to reform an corrupt society. The pious Emperor did much to improve the life of common people. He abolished all illegal taxes, etc. His measures brought relief to common men. He didn't seem to care about his own comfort.
So we can understand from this that, after theirs fathers death, there was a political struggle and Aurangzeb finally was Victorious. What he did to his brothers was somethinh anyone whould do during a rebellion. People kill their own family members for a piece or land or other property dispustes in India lol....
We have to view his actions keeping in mind his time, his circumstances etc. Dont use colored glasses given by anyone to jude a 1000 year old history.
History is never fool proof and what we know today might change tomorrow depending on availability of new evidences. So study history with a pinch of salt lol... It is not admissble in Court of Law lol.....Jokes apart, we seriously need to restore Aurangzeb to the position he deserves. We have certenly been very unfair to him.
Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position.
Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons for Dara Shikohs Killing!
by kanakadurga murali on Sep 16, 2008 06:35 PM Permalink
Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?
If Aurangzeb was so ferocious a communalist, why is it, some historians have asked, that the number of Hindus employed in positions of eminence under Aurangzeb's reign rose from 24.5% in the time of his father Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of his own rule? They suggest, moreover, that Aurangzeb did not indiscriminately destroy Hindu temples, as he is commonly believed to have done so, and that he directed the destruction of temples only when faced with insurgency. This was almost certainly the case with the Keshava Rai temple in the Mathura region, where the Jats rose in rebellion; and yet even this policy of reprisal may have been modified, as Hindu temples in the Deccan were seldom destroyed. The image of Aurangzeb as an idol-breaker may not withstand scrutiny, since there is evidence to show that, like his predecessors, he continued to confer land grants (jagirs) upon Hindu temples, such as the Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple in Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Banaras, Umanand temple in Gauhati, and numerous others.
Much has been made of Aurangzeb's reimposition of the poll tax (jizya, or jizyah) on Hindus. However, as the text of the fatwa, which is seldom read, indicates, an exemption was provided for various classes of people, such as those who were indigent, without employment, unable to work on account of poor health, and so on. Moreover, the fatwa clearly shows that the amount was, far from being uniform, fixed according to a person's ability to pay.
Re: Hate Campaign Against a Community will Split India
by kanakadurga murali on Sep 16, 2008 05:29 PM Permalink
Much has been made of Aurangzeb's reimposition of the poll tax (jizya, or jizyah) on Hindus. However, as the text of the fatwa, which is seldom read, indicates, an exemption was provided for various classes of people, such as those who were indigent, without employment, unable to work on account of poor health, and so on. Moreover, the fatwa clearly shows that the amount was, far from being uniform, fixed according to a person's ability to pay.
Re: Re: Hate Campaign Against a Community will Split India
by kanakadurga murali on Sep 16, 2008 05:33 PM Permalink
If Aurangzeb sought to convert members of important Hindu families to Islam, all the more to ensure the preservation of his empire, why should that serve as a basis for the presumption that a wholesale conversion of Hindus was a matter of state policy? By what method of transference is it possible to construe that conflicts among the ruling elite are conflicts at the broader social level?
Gautier Says that He was Ruthlessly Efficent!!! Thats the reason We in India are a Majority with 87%???
Whereas it is very well known in the History Circle the role of Sufi Saints in Spreading Islam in India.
People like Gautier supported by VHP are out there to destroy Indias Social Fabric for which we are known. The Europeans praise us thinking we are a pluralistic Society! Ha..
Re: Hate Campaign Against a Community will Split India
by kanakadurga murali on Sep 16, 2008 05:44 PM Permalink
Aurangzeb's Fatwa on Jizya [Jizyah, or Poll Tax]
Much has been made of Aurangzeb's reimposition of the poll tax (jizya, or jizyah) on Hindus. However, as the text of the fatwa, which is seldom read, indicates, an exemption was provided for various classes of people, such as those who were indigent, without employment, unable to work on account of poor health, and so on. Moreover, the fatwa clearly shows that the amount was, far from being uniform, fixed according to a person's ability to pay. The statement that the jizyah was imposed as well on "the people of the Book" -- here doubtless a reference to Christians and Jews -- is particularly significant, since it suggests that there was no animus directed particularly against the Hindus. The translation below is by Anver Emon of the Department of History, UCLA.
Re: Re: Re: Hate Campaign Against a Community will Split India
by kanakadurga murali on Sep 16, 2008 05:47 PM Permalink
It is mentioned in al-Idah that if a dhimmi is ill for the entire year such that he cannot work and he is well off, he is not obligated to pay the jizyah, and likewise if he is sick for half of the year or more. If he quits his work while having the capacity [to work] he [is still liable] as one gainfully employed, as is [stated in] al-Nihayah. The jizyah accrues, in our opinion, at the beginning of the year, and it is imposed on the People of the Book (whether they are Arab, non-Arab, or Majians) and idol worshippers (‘abdat al-awthan) from among the non-Arabs, as in al-Kafi...
Re: Hate Campaign Against a Community will Split India
by kanakadurga murali on Sep 16, 2008 05:56 PM Permalink
Another very Important point that needs to be known is that If a non-muslim served in the mughal army, his family was exempted from paying taxes and the similer to non-muslims muslims had to pay much higher level of tax in the form of Zakat!
Jadunath sarkar also states in his book that it is often talked about his imposition of Jizya but he is never given credit for the abolishment of 65 other kinds of taxes that before the mughal rule Hindu Kings used to extract from their subjects. It is a well known fact of history that the local population felt much relieved after abolishment of such taxes and redily paid it according to their ability baring few nobility who had lost their power and prestige they had prior to the mughal rule in India.
It is well established that the Islamic laws were later codified into English & French law which is the source for our own law. It has been challenged that if a study of English and Islamic law is undertaken, it can be conclusively proved that much of the english law that we have today including the declaration on Human Rights can be traced back to Islamic Law. The first edict on Human Rights was issued by an Ottaman Turk Prince!- A Sunni Islam follower Mr Gautier for your kind information :)
Re: Re: Hate Campaign Against a Community will Split India
by kanakadurga murali on Sep 16, 2008 06:18 PM Permalink
He reinstated Islamic lunar calendar. He enforced laws against gambling and drinking.
He abolished taxes on commodities and inland transport duties.
He forbade the practice of Emperor being weighed in gold and silver on birthdays.
Aurangzeb did not draw salary from state treasury but earned his own living by selling caps he sewed and selling copies of the Quran he copied by hand.
Re: Re: Hate Campaign Against a Community will Split India
by Sharib Akhtar on Dec 24, 2010 03:44 PM Permalink
Hello Mr. Murali, Your statements were an eye opener and I appreciate the research you have done before copilng these facts. As you already mentioned that not all may be true and I completely concur with that but trust me that even I read Fayrad French historian books and had the similar viewpoints. Thanks once again. Sharib
