'Hidden History' Aurangazeb the emporer of mugal dynasty was more religious cruel in attitude. He divasted most of the hindu temples, hindu's had been looked down, they were not given jobs. hindu's had been taxed for their religious offering of hair. Historian's had not maligned his image, but enlighted less information about his cruelty. The Historians who wrote the other side of his real doings were given importance by political leaders for their vote bank politics. If most part of his deeds during his regime were hidden in India, the world knows what he is.
I challenge Ekalavyan cannot be follower of Dr. Ambedkar. I have studied a lot about Dr. Ambedkar. There can be different views about Dr. Ambedkar, but he was hard-core patriot, a true Indian and there can never be other opinion. I also subscribe to the views of Dr. Ambedkar, regarding untouchablity etc. and though his opinion were quite harsh but appreciable. I also have learnt lot from him, though I am neither Brahmin nor Dalit, SC, ST etc. but at the same I do not differentiate among people, it may be because I born and brought up in cosmopolitan culture. Dr. Ambedkar was a great personality, and people like who do believe in his ideology definitely carries lots of respect for him. I have never heard that he ever taught anything about anti-country activities, or he have subscribed the partition of country on religious basis, otherwise he would have not been in India, and had not been contributed his efforts by writing constitution of India. Mr Ekalavyan had abused me also and at that time I could not understand what for he had abused me as I had never written about any religion and absolutely never for any caste. I had always written for the interest of the people of this country, though many of the subjects might have gone against my Muslim brothers, but all those are in favour of this country, and in long run for my Muslim brothers also, if they come out from religious fundamentalism and think from country and its citizen%u2019s point of view.
My dear Ekalavyan, I do not know the reason of your frustration. I am quite sure if Dr. Amedkar would have alive today, he also might have been happy to see that there are lot of changes towards his dreams and expectations. I am one of the examples and even none of my friends believe in such nonsense that means we all are the followers of Dr. Ambedkar%u2019s ideologies. I am sure Dr. Ambedkar would have ever appreciated supports to the such people who speaks against the interest of his beloved country. I would request you my readers to read Baaba Saheb's biography and teachings. The readers would find lots of criticism about Brahmanism, which were synonymies with Hinduism (I could not understand how, as Hinduism is an extended form of lifestyle of this country and Brahmins only do not represent this country, if Baba Saheb was not in Brahmin, so as not I and other people, if we go to the mythology of this country, Krishna was not Brahmin, though he is treated as God and many people believe as incarnation of Lord Vishnu and again all the believers are not Brahmin.), but so far his patriotism, love and devotion for the country is concerned, I am a very small person to write. Otherwise also the history speaks about his relationship about the other leaders from different caste and religion. His hatred was for certain attitude and not for any particular person or any caste, community etc. and which is quite logical and rational, at least a person like me firmly believes.
Mr. Ekalavyan, if you also believe in fundamentalism, terrorism, anti-country activities etc. or you are also one of among them, hiding your identity and using the name of a great ancient personality then it is something else. History speaks that Ekalavyan had great respect for this country, his own motherland and as well for his teacher Guru Dronnacharya, and any person have respect for Ekalavyan would never dare to malign his name. My dear esteemed readers, kindly refresh your memory and recollect the personality of Mahabharata%u2019s Ekalavyan or go to any nearest library to find about his personality and compare this incarnation of Ekalavyan.
Be Aware! There is something fishy. Real Ekalavyan can never support to such bad elements.
RE:My dear Ekalavyan, who are you?
by Ekalavyan on Mar 27, 2007 07:27 AM Permalink
I think you are a crooked, cunning contakerrous, Brahmin to befool innocent Dalits and OBC's. One thing is certain You are quite innocent about Ambedkarism and Dalit liberation ideology. Next after getting your reply.
RE:My dear Ekalavyan, who are you?
by An Indian on Mar 27, 2007 09:14 AM Permalink
My dear Ekalavyan
I need not to take any lesson from you. I am not Brahmin but do not use any filthy languages for Brahimin, so as not for any person, be it Dalit, SC, ST, OBC, Muslims or any creature in the world. Otherwise also I enjoy the relationship with all the communities and I do not know even what their casts are, as it does not make any difference to me. Though I know about few of them, but so far the matter difference is concerned it never invaded in my mind, and I would make sure that it never overpowes to me. I hate fundamentalism and so called liberation ideology, as there are series of such ideologies are available, and everyone has their own justification. I have read Amdedkar, so as Gandhi, Nehru, Subhas also; while I subscribe the views of Baba Saheb, so as to Gandhiji%u2019s also, though Gandhiji was not Dalit. I have read Gita also (you may call it as Hindu religious book because of ignorance, but I know that at that time the name of religion was not heard by one, as the religion started only when self styled prophet erupted in the world and their disciples started creating difference among the people, virtually killing the mother of all religion i.e. humanism, to gain supremacy over others and vested interest. I am least interested to know about Dalit liberation ideology, because I am fully aware about the intention behind it, otherwise after such situation of hatred was not created and intensified, rather solid works should have been carried to ensure the elimination of the differences among cast, creed etc. and uplift the deprived society not on the basis of caste rather on the basis of other factors like economic, health, education etc.
Otherwise also, I really do not feel that you are capable to teach me, as lots of other literatures are available, who teaches about the mother of all religion i.e. humanism. You may be highly qualified (but not educated), might have deep specialisation about any subject, might have carried thorough research on any subject, and I would never like to challenge your supremacy so far the theoretical knowledge is concerned, but the moot question is with what objective and with what attitude.
With due apology, I can never accept any teacher (or brainwasher) who spread hatred, create differences among people, use filthy languages, supports any group of people (or community) and cause which harms to our motherland, maintain the preference of own (under the shadow of community) agenda over and at the cost of country%u2019s interest.
Hence my dear Ekalavyan, I outright reject your %u2013 next after getting your reply - proposal, but despite that I carry high regards for difference icons including Baba Saheb.
I wonder as to how Baba Saheb would have taken you as his follower who hurls abuses and uses filthy languages as part of life, if he would have been alive today, again if you are really his so called follower or posing to confuse the readers.
RE:My dear Ekalavyan, who are you?
by CG NAIR on Mar 26, 2007 11:05 PM Permalink
Dear friend, your long sermons are of no use. If these people cannot understand the reasoned analysis of people like us believing in Humanism (I wonder whether they have heard about it) there is nothing that can be done.
Who has started posting using the name or posed as Francoise Gautiere, though spelling is different than the original writer of this article. What a mockery it is.
Who is this Francoise Gautiere, posting his messages, contradicting the views of original writer of this article to confuse the readers?
There is miserably something wrong in this community, who believes using other%u2019s name, other%u2019s identity etc. and believes only dishonest and barbaric means.
Readers please be aware and find out who is this.
I request moderator to find and confirm that someone is misusing the name of original writer to misguide the readers and malign the original writer by twisting the facts.
Moderator may kindly restore the credibility of Rediff by bringing the truth, as to what relationship this readers has with original writer.
RE:Who is this Francoise Gautiere, posting his messages, contradicting the views of original writer of this article to confuse the readers?
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:29 PM Permalink
HE IS NONE OTHER THAN THE IMPOSTER MIKE GANDHI!
RE:Who is this Francoise Gautiere, posting his messages, contradicting the views of original writer of this article to confuse the readers?
by Ekalavyan on Mar 27, 2007 07:31 AM Permalink
If a nobel Prize to be given for a best Imposter You are the fittest person!!!
RE:RE:Who is this Francoise Gautiere, posting his messages, contradicting the views of original writer of this article to confuse the readers?
by Ekalavyan on Mar 27, 2007 07:53 AM Permalink
all mother fuc*kers think strangely.
RE:Who is this Francoise Gautiere, posting his messages, contradicting the views of original writer of this article to confuse the readers?
by Perv Sharma on Mar 27, 2007 09:00 AM Permalink
To start with it's Ek LAv who thinks strangely.
RE:Who is this Francoise Gautiere, posting his messages, contradicting the views of original writer of this article to confuse the readers?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Mar 27, 2007 10:14 AM Permalink
This article gives you an idea of what may the tip of the iceberg.
It may give you a better idea why there is such a desperate effort on this message board by the likes of Ekalavyan, Mike Gandhi, Francoise Gautiere to distract from the truth
As long as they keep screaming they are able to distract you and put you on the defensive.
This is the age old technique of pretending to be a victim, crying, moaning and when the enemy is distracted, destroying him.
I hope that all people who are fair minded understand that these people will stop at nothing to distort the truth
Come to your own conclusions but think as to why they are so depserate that they keep repeating the same thing.
RE:WHAT WOULD BE THEIR FATE UNDER AURANGZEBS RULE ?
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:30 PM Permalink
iam sure he would have executed all others except , soha, katrina , mandakini. as for these three ,he would have 'punished' them 'differently'.
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.
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by An Indian on Mar 26, 2007 06:53 PM Permalink
Who is this Francoise Gautiere, posting his messages, contradicting the views of original writer of this article to confuse the readers?
Who has started posting using the name or posed as Francoise Gautiere, though spelling is different than the original writer of this article. What a mockery it is.
Who is this Francoise Gautiere, posting his messages, contradicting the views of original writer of this article to confuse the readers?
There is miserably something wrong in this community, who believes using other%u2019s name, other%u2019s identity etc. and believes only dishonest and barbaric means.
Readers please be aware and find out who is this.
I request moderator to find and confirm that someone is misusing the name of original writer to misguide the readers and malign the original writer by twisting the facts.
Moderator may kindly restore the credibility of Rediff by bringing the truth, as to what relationship this readers has with original writer.
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:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:32 PM Permalink
COMPARE THESE ARTICLES WITH THE ONES POSTED BY MIKE GANDHI,THEY ARE EXACTLY SAME,SO THIS IS MIKE GANDHI.
I could see how even fair-minded individuals like Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen may have been deceived by the deadly venoms of dishonest, prejudiced historians whose sole aim has been to smear Muslim history. Such intellectual dishonesty by historians is dangerous - more explosive and more damaging than nuclear bombs. We have already seen its hideous effect with the destruction of Muslim historic sites (including the Babri Mosque) and recent riots in India that killed thousands of Muslims. Let us not fall into the trap set by those who want to "neatly divide our world." Let truth vanquish falsehood.
1 For example, see Shri Binoy Ghosh%u2019s Bharatjaner Etihash (Bengali for: History of Indian People), Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
2 Quoted in Chepe Rakha Itihash (The History %u2013 Hushed Up) by G. A. Murtaza, Barddhaman, India.
3 He demonstrated his vast knowledge of Persian-language (the official language during the Mughal period) sources. However, he was a Euro-centric historian and thus, not flawless in historical accounts. He served as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta (1926-28).
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:33 PM Permalink
COMPARE THESE ARTICLES WITH THE ONES POSTED BY MIKE GANDHI,THEY ARE EXACTLY SAME,SO THIS IS MIKE GANDHI.
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)
Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration," Sir Jadunath Sarkar3, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb%u2019s reign in power, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million Rupees from the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb)
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:33 PM Permalink
COMPARE THESE ARTICLES WITH THE ONES POSTED BY MIKE GANDHI,THEY ARE EXACTLY SAME,SO THIS IS MIKE GANDHI.
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.
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:33 PM Permalink
COMPARE THESE ARTICLES WITH THE ONES POSTED BY MIKE GANDHI,THEY ARE EXACTLY SAME,SO THIS IS MIKE GANDHI.
