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.
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.
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.
DALIT BAHUJANS WILL NOT BE HIT BY ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!. ALL BRAHMANICLAL EFFOTRS ON THAT FRONT WILL BE DOOMED. IT IS ONLY DAYDREAMING!!! YOU WICKED PEOPLE,BEAR IN MIND. CRUELTY IS THE OTHER NAME FOR BRAHMANISM. IT IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT HATE PHILOSOPHY. WE DALIT- BAHUJANS CONSIDER BRAHMANISM AS OUR ENEMY NO:ONE. WE ARE DITERMINED TO BURRY IT ALIVE!!!.MUSLIMS ARE OUR ALLIES IN OUR FIGHT AGAINST BRAHMANISM. ISLAM AND BRAHMANISM ARE ON OPPOSITE POLES. ISLAM STANDS FOR BROTHERHOOD AND EQUALITY. BRAHMANISM IS THE NEGATION OF ALL HUMAN VALUES LIKE EQUALITY, LIBERTY, AND FRATERNITY. IT IS A SLAUGHTER HOUSE. WE SUFFERED FOR TWO MILLENIA. ALL BRAHMANICAL PROPAGANDA WILL BE DROWNED IN THE INDIAN OCEAN. SEE THE NATURE POLITICS OF TWO COWBELT STATES, UP AND BIHAR
RE:DALIT BAHUJANS WILL NOT BE HIT BY ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!
by Perv Sharma on Mar 25, 2007 05:52 PM Permalink
That's what we are saying why are you still carrying a Hindu Name. As long as you carry a Hindu name you won't be able to drown anything associated with Brahmanical propoganda.
Surprisingly, Since you find Islam attractive why don't join this religion. Na na but then what about your best Government job .. Na na it's too tempting na na BC/OBC SC/ST and then now you become a DC.
RE:[object]
by Perv Sharma on Mar 25, 2007 05:58 PM Permalink
It's been more than 14 years in U.P. and Bihar and the people have become COWS and your brothers (muslims) are waiting to just taste how the beef is.
Anyway, I hope U are as intelligent as original EKLav - These BIMARU states are what the acronym stands for. Nobody cares about these states.
RE:[object]
by Ekalavyan on Mar 25, 2007 06:18 PM Permalink
These bimaru states became "bimaru" because of THE ATTACK OF Brahmanical HIV virus. AIDS VIRUS IS SAMLL FRY COMPARED TO DEDLY BRAHMANICAL VIRUS. SOUTHERN STATES ARE RATHER RELATIVELY FREE FROM DEDLY BRAHMANICAL VIRUS. SO THERE IS SOME SEMBLANCE OF PROGRESS. PLEASE NOTE THAT BRAHMANISM IS THE ENEMY NO:ONE OF SCIENCE ND TECHNOLOGY. your man Acharya PCRay has emphaticlly stated it.
RE:DALIT BAHUJANS WILL NOT BE HIT BY ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!
by Ekalavyan on Mar 29, 2007 08:13 AM Permalink
According to latest UN human development report-2006, wealthiest nations or most developed nations are nordic states like Sweden, Norway, Switzarland, where there are 100 percent reservation!!!.Only reservation will bring peace and prospirity. REServation leads to democratisation, and in turn brings development. Upper caste merit!!! My foot!!!
RE:DALIT BAHUJANS WILL NOT BE HIT BY ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!
by Ekalavyan on Mar 27, 2007 06:15 AM Permalink
According to Gujarati Nazi Poet Narsi Metha, Harijan means Bastard. ARe you a bastard?
RE:RE:DALIT BAHUJANS WILL NOT BE HIT BY ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!
by wada pav on Mar 26, 2007 12:11 AM Permalink
BIMARU STATES HAVE HIGH MUSLIM POPULATION ,THATS WHY THEY R BIMARU.
RE:[object]
by Ekalavyan on Mar 27, 2007 06:31 AM Permalink
Thiis is "Aryavarta" nerve centre of decadent Aryan centre or known, as, cow Belt,hit by deadliest of all viruses deadlier than AIDS HIV called inhuman criminal Brahmanism. cow belt was hit and sickened by brahmanism. If cow is mother naturally Bull is father.Notorious Aryan culture was notorious for beastiality, sex with animals. This is the reason for Bimaru's Backwardness. Muslim population will help us to liberate these people from Brahmanical Bimaru or "BRAHMANARU"
