Just think a man such, character, calibre who cares and concern for public can be unjust, cruel. Just imagine A King such cruel and unjust to the Majority could rule a huge country, for about 50 years, where majority members serving highest position and comprising 80% in the Military.
He was so pious best character person noble and just. You cannot find a single one in the present leaders.
1. His personal piety, however is undeniable he led an exemplary simple pious life.
He care for the Royal Treasury as Public Treasury and for public. The present leaders considers Public treasury to personal Treasy.
2. Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb did consider the royal treasury as a trust of the citizens of his empire and did not use it for personal expenses.
He was subedar in Deccan and Gujarat. He did not destroy any Temple, His period was peaceful and prosperous, called Golden Period.
3. Despite more than two decades he campaign as Subedar in Deccan and Gujarat there is no record of temple destruction in the region. He continued to confer Jagirs to Hindu Temples. His period was golden period and relatively peaceful, prosperous in his tenure.
He was maligned that he was against art and Music. He was the accomplished musician playing VEENA. (He banned all Ashlil Nangey Nude dances )
4. Surprisingly he is well accomplished in playing VEENA stringed instruments.(Music Instrument)
Many historians accepted that the lies against Aurangzeb invented.
RE:Good work of Truth Finder. The Great King Aurangzeb
by mandook on Mar 07, 2008 08:54 PM Permalink
How can any sensible person consider Aurangazeb azs being "truly religious" when he considered all non Muslims as inhuman beings. How can a person who mercilessly killed nonbelievers in Islam as being pious? All arguments of supporters of this cruel emperor are worthless chaff.
Temple constructed by Aurangzeb Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb had constructed a huge temple in Chitrakut (Uttar Pradesh) and made arrangement for the 'bhog' at this temple for generations. Many historians consider Aurangzeb as the most bigot emperor.
However, the old arrangement continues till date. Nearly 323 years back Aurangzeb Alamgir had issued a 'firman' as per which 8 villages (330 bighas of land) were allotted for the upkeep of the temple besides Re 1 every day from the government fund.
Mahant Balram Das of the temple is in possession of the firmaan that was written on brass plate and issued on 19th of Islamic month of Ramzan. As per the decree Sant Balak Das of Allahabad's Kalinjar pargana's Chitrakoot was given 330 bighas of land without any 'lagaan'. The temple is now in a poor state despite enormous funds at the disposal. The discord amongst Mahants has led to the situation, say locals.
Interestingly, Aurangzeb had not only got the temple constructed but also wrote the order of 'rajbhog', himself. The land adjoining the Balaji temple has been encroached by musclemen and the infighting amongst the temple committee has hit the structure, which is crumbling, says the District Magistrate, Chitrakot.
RE:TEMPLE CONSTRUCTED BY EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:17 AM Permalink
From: "Mughal warfare: Indian Frontiers and Highroads to Empire 1500-1700" by Jos J. L. Gommans. Page 40.
... even in the more settled regions of empire we find a gentry thar is never sure about it's position and, in case of need is ready to shift habitation, allegience and identtity... for the Mughals to gain access to India's immense resources and rural production and military labour, they had to come to terms with the powerful Indian zamindars, who mediated the payment of the land revenue. ... Although at times Muslims and Hindus plublicly pledged to fight each other, in practice the were more usually fighting amongst themselves in one or the other pragmatically inspired alliance... a great deal of power had to be delegated to numerous administrator warriors (Rajputs). [even clerks and accountants had to enrol in the army because the Mughal administration was military in origin] .. every high [administrtive official] had to be enrolled in the armylist as he was given a mansab, or rank as the nominal commander of a certain number of horsemen which determined his pay or status. For there military rank-holders wielding the pen was considered as useful for military purposes as wielding the sword...for about two centuries, the Mughals successfully managed to seduce these peoply with imperial ranks (mansabs) into becoming dedicated co-shares in their realm and taking part in its prodigious wealth in cash and land...the empire could not do without the [Hindu] zamindars as t
RE:RE:TEMPLE CONSTRUCTED BY EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:17 AM Permalink
[Hindu] zamindars as the chief mediator between the court and the village.... the Mughals attempted to co-opt the zamindars into the mansabdari system..
To me it all looks they did it for their personal gain, some Hindus were willing to sell out on their Dharma, no more. Secondly the figure of 143 mansabdars in Aurangzebs court simply means that there weren't enought educated Muslims to do the administrative work of the ever expanding empire and Aurangzebs clever use of bribing the Hindu rajas with official titles. It doesn't in any way detract from his zealotry.
It should be pointed out here that while Jizya tax was collected from able-bodied non-Muslim adult males who did not volunteer to join war efforts in a Muslim-administered country, a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war-efforts for defense of the Muslim-administered state. Zakat (2.5% of savings) and %u2018Ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called Nisab). They also had to pay sadaqah, fitrah and Khums. None of these taxes were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita tax collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. I would also like to state here that before the advent of Islam in India, Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith) War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers. Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy)
Now let us deal with Aurangzeb%u2019s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb%u2019s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that Jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:10 AM Permalink
JIZIYA is not a tax as many people think .its a set of around 20 restrictions to be imposed on non-muslim subjects in a country occupied by muslims. the terms were set by caliph umar when he invaded egypt and subjugated christians and jews. in india, jiziya was applied to Hindus , sikhs, buddhist and jains.. those who pay jiziya are called Dhimmi which means subjugated , miserable , inferior.
the terms of jiziya are as follows..
1. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols was prohibited on buildings and on clothing.
2. Loud prayers were forbidden.
3. Dhimmis were prohibited from proselytizing.they were also forbidden from preventing a dhimmi from being converted to islam.
4. Dhimnmis were prohibited fromn publishing or sale of non-Muslim religious literature and a ban on teaching the Qur%u2019an.
5. Dhimmis had to bury their dead without loud lamentations and prayers.
6. Dhimmis were not to rebuild or repair destroyed temples.
7. Dhimmi testimony and oaths were not valid against Muslims.On the other hand, Muslims could testify against Dhimmis.
8. Dhimmis had no right to bear arms of any kind.
9. Dhimmis were forbidden to ride horses or camels; they were only allowed to ride donkeys.
10.Dhimmis could not to build houses higher than those of Muslims.
11.Dhimmi man could not marry a Muslim woman.
12.Dhimmis had to build their houses away from muslim localities.
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%u2019s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same text book reads: "During the 50-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%u2019s 50-year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way. These above references clearly show that accusations of forced conversion and religious intolerance are false. It is also evident that since the independence of India in 1947, there has been an overt attempt by revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians in India to malign the Muslim history.
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:15 AM Permalink
From "The Mughal Empire", John F. Richards. Pg. 176
Zealous imperial officers had considerable power to enforce the new edicts, especially among the urban non-warrior groups. At Suray in 1669 the qazi terrorized the entire Bania or Hindu merchant community of that city. He pressured several members of the community to convert to Islam and threatened others with forcible conversions unless they paid ransom money. He extorted other sums to prevent defacement of the Hindu temples and shrines in the city. The qazi forcibly circumsized and converted a Bania serving as a Persian writer or clerk, who then killed himself. At this point there was a mass protest: "all heads of the Banian families of what condition whatsoever departed the Town to the number of 8000 leaving their wives and children in Surat under charge of their brothger or next of Kinn".
Regarding Jizya ...
.. the Hindus crowded from the gate to the fort to the Jama Masjid in large numbers to for imploring redress ... [Aurangzeb], who was riding on an elephant, could not reach the mosque...Then he ordered the majestic elephants should proceed against them. Some of them [Hindus] were killed ... at last then submitted to pay the Jiziyah.
Aurangzeb's ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversions was a sure way to the empeor's favor.. In many disputed successions for
RE:RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:14 AM Permalink
In many disputed successions for hereditary local office Aurangzeb chose candidates who had converted to Islam over the rivals. Pragana headmen and qanungos or recordkeepers were targeted especially for pressure to convert.
Regarding Hindus serving for Mughal emperors especially Aurangzeb.
These were alliances of convenience (in fact Indians should take note what happens when they fight amongst themselves). Aurangzeb had made the titles hereditary and the Hindu Zamindars wanted to legitimise their rule. Tactically this was a smart move by Aurangzeb to get the Hindus rulers into his orbit by getting them onside and then sorting them out one by one, divide and rule. Jaswant Singh is a case in point, just after he died all temples in his kingdom were destroyed. Earlier the mansabdari system too was created to incorporate these "civilized" and settled centres of society, by Akbar, it was based on sem-meritocracy to enable non-muslims to rise to a position of some power. Aurangzeb simply used it as a divide and rule instrument.
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%u2019an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (Qur%u2019an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Unbelievers) 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 which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur%u2019an. Interestingly, the 1946 edition of history text book, Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History), used in Bengal, published by the Hindustan Press, 10 Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta, 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."
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:07 AM Permalink
If he did donate some land / grants for some temples, most of these were in kingdoms of his hindu generals and this may have been done to please them and portray himself as secular.
4. having hindu generals and giving grants to temples in no way negates the evil acts he performed. even the nazis employed jewish security guards in jewish labour camps and ghettoes,not because they liked jews, but they wanted to make use of the jewish manpower.
Two of the highest ranked generals, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, in Aurangzeb%u2019s administration 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? Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had 14 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. It does not require much intelligence to understand the difference between 14 and 148. But when truth is hostage to bigotry, facts are substituted for fiction, 148 may appear to be smaller than 14 to disingenuous historians, and that is an unfortunate reality we face.
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:05 AM Permalink
aurangzebs empire was larger than that of akbar and without the help of hindu kings he would not have been able to rule this vast country. so he had to rely on the hindu kings and generals ,to use their armies and keep them fighting among each other, in this he was a cunning and brilliant strategist but definitely not secular. thats precisely the reason why the moghul empre collapsed after his death, those hindu kings who had joined him out of fear immediately shifted loyalties and no longer supported his sons, so mughals lost control over much of india.
7 .aurangzebs reign was marred by large scale rebellions all over the country, Sikhs , Jats , Marathas , Gujratis ,assamese all were rebelling simultaneously. even afghans/pashtuns rebelled against aurangzebs atrocities. ( he sent rajputs to crush pashtuns) his predecessors like akbar did not have to face this large scale rebellion. this being the case aurangzeb was smart enough to understand that his mughal/muslim soldiers were not numerically enough to quell all the rebellions simultaneously all over this vast country. so he had to depend on hindu generals. it was a marriage of convenience and not very different from the shameless political alliances and coalitions we see in india today .
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:18 AM Permalink
From: "Mughal warfare: Indian Frontiers and Highroads to Empire 1500-1700" by Jos J. L. Gommans. Page 40.
... even in the more settled regions of empire we find a gentry thar is never sure about it's position and, in case of need is ready to shift habitation, allegience and identtity... for the Mughals to gain access to India's immense resources and rural production and military labour, they had to come to terms with the powerful Indian zamindars, who mediated the payment of the land revenue. ... Although at times Muslims and Hindus plublicly pledged to fight each other, in practice the were more usually fighting amongst themselves in one or the other pragmatically inspired alliance... a great deal of power had to be delegated to numerous administrator warriors (Rajputs). [even clerks and accountants had to enrol in the army because the Mughal administration was military in origin] .. every high [administrtive official] had to be enrolled in the armylist as he was given a mansab, or rank as the nominal commander of a certain number of horsemen which determined his pay or status. For there military rank-holders wielding the pen was considered as useful for military purposes as wielding the sword...for about two centuries, the Mughals successfully managed to seduce these peoply with imperial ranks (mansabs) into becoming dedicated co-shares in their realm and taking part in its prodigious wealth in cash and land...the empire could not do without the [Hindu] zamindars
It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee2 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%u2019s long reign of 50 years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Cror
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:04 AM Permalink
Francoise Gautiere have been spamming the site with cut-paste articles which sing praises of auranzeb, most of these have been written by pro-muslim western or pseudo-secular/marxist indian historians, most of whom did not live in the days of aurangzeb,these historians have no idea of the tyranny and misery under which hindus , sikh , buddhist and jains had to live in those days. we also can cut-paste articles from western articles who portray aurangzeb as evil,but obviously muslims will not believe in them, they refer to western historians only when it suits them.
2.While its true that aurangzeb had many hindu generals, that was because he was cunning and one of the earliest proponents of 'Divide and rule' policy.he hired them purely for political goals and not because he loved hindus.besides many of these hindu generals were hereditory servants of mughals,their grandfathers having served akbar and shahjahan. aurangzeb had very little trust on his hindu generals, he poisoned to death his commander-in-chief Mirza Raje Jaisingh and when Jaswant singh died,he invaded his kingdom and destroyed all the temples there. Many smaller hindu kings served him purely out of fear of being invaded. Many others served him to settle scores against rival hindu kings. many others served him to get mansabdari. this switchover of loyaly was very common in those days's especially among some rajputs and maratha's for example when Sambhaji Maharaj insulted his br
RE:RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by jatin on Jun 07, 2007 11:05 AM Permalink
insulted his brother in law Ganoji Shirke, the latter immediately joined hands with aurangzeb and helped him in capturing Sambhaji. the king of jaipur joined akbar because of his rivalry with Rana Pratap. So there were multiple reasons why hindu generals were working for aurangzeb and he tolerated them because he could use their armies against one another.
3. He did donate some land / grants for some temples, most of these were in kingdoms of his hindu generals and this may have been done to please them and portray himself as secular.
4. having hindu generals and giving grants to temples in no way negates the evil acts he performed. even the nazis employed jewish security guards in jewish labour camps and ghettoes,not because they liked jews, but they wanted to make use of the jewish manpower.
5.He also had to employ hindus in his empires backoffice, because only hindus possesed the skills like calculating taxes, revenue,income,expenditure, accounting,loans,salaries etc. hindus had long experience and skills since thousands of years in managing empires something the illiterate arabs and turks lacked. muslims excelled only in warfare and were not educated,hindus on the otherhand were skilled in mathematics , accounting , business and trade etc so he was forced to rely on them.but that does not mean he liked them. Even today in gulf the rich but illiterate arabs employ hindus to do these tasks,but they hate hindu religion.
