RE:The Truth About the Aurangzeb
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.
RE:RE:The Truth About the Aurangzeb
by raghav bhatt on Mar 27, 2007 12:29 PM Permalink
Dear Dongi FG, Try to read the following & understand the truth about your(Pandes) mythical story.
Why did Aurangzeb Demolish the Kashi Vishvanath? Koenraad Elst During the Ayodhya controversy, there were occasional statements in the Hindutva camp confirming (VHP) or denying (BJP) that apart from Ram Janmabhoomi, two other sacred sites should also be %u201Cliberated%u201D from Islamic %u201Coccupation%u201D: Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura and Kashi Vishvanath in Varanasi. Though the Hindu business community in central Varanasi has made it clear that it refuses to suffer the inevitable losses which would accompany an agitation in their densely populated neighbourhood, the liberation of Kashi Vishvanath is still on the VHP%u2019s agenda. Therefore, some authors have tried to %u201Cdo an Ayodhya%u201D on Kashi, viz. try to make people believe that there never was a Hindu temple at the disputed site. Syed Shahabuddin asserts that Muslims cannot possibly have destroyed any Hindu temple, because %u201Cpulling down a place of worship to construct a mosque is against the Shariat%u201D; claims to the contrary are all %u201Cchauvinist propaganda.%u201D Arun Shourie has confronted this claim with the information given in the official court chronicle, Maasiri Alamgiri, which records numerous orders for and reports of destructions of temples. Its entry for 2 September 1669 tells us: %u201CNews came to court that in accordance with the Emperor%u2019s command his officers had demolished the temple of Vishvanath at Banaras%u201D . Moreover, till today, the old Kashi Vishvanath temple wall is visible as a part of the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque which Aurangzeb had built at the site. In the face of such direct testimony, it is wiser not to challenge facts headon. It is better to minimize or to justify them. Thus, Percival Spear, co-author (with Romila Thapar) of the prestigious Penguin History of India, writes: %u201CAurangzeb%u2019s supposed intolerance is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares.%u201D But a perusal of the same Moghul chronicle thoroughly refutes this reassuring assertion: Aurangzeb had thousands of temples destroyed. And other chronicles, diaries and other documents concerning Muslim rulers in India prove that the practice was not a personal idiosyncrasy of Aurangzeb%u2019s either. Therefore, a more promising way of defusing the conflict potential which the mosque at the Kashi Vishvanath site carries, is to justify the replacement of the temple with a mosque. Maybe the owners and users of the temple had brought it on themselves? Maybe Islam can be disentangled from this act of destruction in favour of a purely secular motive? JNU historian Prof. K.N. Panikkar offers one way out: %u201Cthe destruction of the temple at Banaras also had political motives. It appears that a nexus between the sufi rebe
RE:[object]
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 01:25 AM Permalink
Even today ingulf the rich but illiterate arabs employ hindus to do these tasks,but they hate hindu religion.
RE:WHY AURANGZEB EMPLOYED HINDUS
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 12:14 PM Permalink
Also every country has its own share of traitors, so many hindu kings who joined him were simply traitors and did not represent the majority of oppressed hindus.
1.fear ,
2.hope of getting mansabdari ,
3.greed ,
4.rivalry with other hindu kings ,
5.hereditory enemity with other hindu kings.
6.being hereditory servants of previous mughal rulers
7. cowardice and traitorship
these were the reasons why some hindu kings were supporting aurangzeb.this does not give aurangzeb a clean chit.
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.
RE:WHY AURANGZEB EMPLOYED HINDUS
by wada pav on Mar 27, 2007 12:20 AM Permalink
One more important reason why he had to rely on hindus.
--------------------------------
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.
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 .
