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 TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:34 PM Permalink
COMPARE THESE ARTICLES WITH THE ONES POSTED BY MIKE GANDHI,THEY ARE EXACTLY SAME,SO THIS IS MIKE GANDHI.
I have read your response very carefully and tried to analyse your thoughts. I at outset I would like to mention that I am not at all interested to challenge the knowledge and intelligence of anyone including you. I am not interested to comments on the quotes, misquotes, interpretation and misinterpretation of any religious (or so called holly) books. I am not at all interested to annoy also anyone because the time, the biggest ruler of the universe would decide his or her fate. I have read many posting, many quotes, misquotes, interpretations and misinterpretations of many reader, are from different religion (started by so called prophets or otherwise) and with different ideologies. From example, one of the readers of Muslim community has justified that Jihad is absolutely correct and it must be carried on, he even compared the court judgement of, like death sentence and killing of enemies in war field with the killings of Jihad. I can never think such an illogical advocacy from other community people, when I asked what would be the consequence if everyone starts executing own judgement and if someone gives verdict against you that an insane person has no right to exist in this world or at least India, then what would be your reaction, I could not get any reply. One gentleman had been challenging that what he had quoted, all are directly from Quran and Hadith, and there is no scope for denial. Other people have quoted different interpretations from different books of different religion but it is almost certain that they have spent lots of time, and have carried lots of research, and are quite intelligent also, but the authenticity of all those are difficult to examine and hardly carry any relevance in the present context and which affects our day-to-day life. Your have also tried to explain some definition which definitely has its relevance, but simultaneously twisted and misinterpreted in accordance to your own wishes and own benefit, and tried to justify judiciously. I am least interested to exhibit my wisdom, rather interested for such matters which are affecting the life of majorities (not religious), exploitation of resources by certain of segment of people etc., encouraging group criminality like terrorism and related activities, anti-country activities etc.
Now I reply to your queries:
You comments:
Society is Group of People of particular land at a particular time in history. whereas RELIGION has been the IDEOLOGY which that believed in and practised to evolve into a custom and habits then culture and in a larger frame of time it is called a CIVILISATION.
My reply:
I do agree with your classical definition and would like to reply you that invasion of Arab culture (not Muslim religion, as religion is nothing to do with the culture, as the culture is based on the geographic location, available natural resources, climate e
RE:For Mohammed Sahim Ahmed
by Rasheed on Mar 26, 2007 10:02 PM Permalink
Indian, amazing, I dont have the time to read your post. Wonder how you got the time to write it, LOL
RE:For Mohammed Sahim Ahmed
by Rasheed on Mar 27, 2007 04:41 PM Permalink
Funny, your last line: "I could spare the time only because I am involve in anti-country activities." Freudian slip, heh?
RE:For Mohammed Sahim Ahmed
by Rasheed on Mar 27, 2007 09:46 PM Permalink
Stop preaching yaar. I didnt get my Indian citizen ship from your grandpa. Doze off, buddy.
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.
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.
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 I could not understand what for he had abused me because 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 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 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 expectation. I am one of the examples and even none of my friends believe in such nonsense that means we are the followers of Dr. Ambedkar%u2019s ideologies. I am sure Dr. Ambedkar would have ever appreciated such supports to the people who speaks against the interest of his beloved country.
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.
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."
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.
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 Crory, held very high administrative positions.
RE:
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:34 PM Permalink
COMPARE THESE ARTICLES WITH THE ONES POSTED BY MIKE GANDHI,THEY ARE EXACTLY SAME,SO THIS IS MIKE GANDHI.
In a polarized world that we live in (which is, sadly, getting ever more polarized now by every minute and hour), we have often assumed that what is good for "our" people had to be bad for the "other" people. A glaring example is the personality of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who ruled India for 50 years. Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 C.E., probably no one generates as much controversy as Aurangzeb. He has been hailed as anyone from a "Saintly or Pauper Emperor" to one who "tried hard to convert Hindus into Muslims." Depending on one%u2019s religious rearing, one will favor one view over the other. For example, most Hindus castigate Aurangzeb as a religious Muslim, who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated them away from high administrative positions, who interfered in their religious matters. On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted ruler. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government-approved text books in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947) is sufficient.1 The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records.
RE:
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:34 PM Permalink
COMPARE THESE ARTICLES WITH THE ONES POSTED BY MIKE GANDHI,THEY ARE EXACTLY SAME,SO THIS IS MIKE GANDHI.
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:
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 08:35 PM Permalink
COMPARE THESE ARTICLES WITH THE ONES POSTED BY MIKE GANDHI,THEY ARE EXACTLY SAME,SO THIS IS MIKE GANDHI.
