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?
RE:THE BUNCH OF LIES AGAINST THE EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 13, 2007 03:45 AM Permalink
Temples in Jaswant's kingdom were razed to the ground shortly after he died.
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:LIES AGAINTS THE EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 13, 2007 03:47 AM Permalink
If you include the population of Porkistan and Beggardesh this argument is meaningless. Secondly in the urban areas where the Mughal control was total, the conversion was close to 100%.
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:THE GREAT EMPEROR ''AURANGZEB''
by Secular Indian on Mar 13, 2007 03:50 AM Permalink
By no measure can he be called a good ruler, there was constant rebellion, mostly Hindus objecting to high taxes, Jaziyah, and and his religious zeal regarding forced conversions to Islam, His empire disintegrated shortly after he died.
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."
RE:LIES AGAINST THE GREAT EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 13, 2007 03:53 AM Permalink
He destroyed what he could he tried his best to destroy the Hindu civilization, it's just that his best was not good enough.
Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen 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
RE:LIES AGAINST EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 13, 2007 03:56 AM Permalink
Most of these mansubdars were on the administrative side, they had to have notional posts in the Mughal military as for pay and status, nothing else. If just shows that Muslims had fewer educated/literate numbers and Hindus were necessary for the functioning of the empire. Aurangzeb couldn't take them on all at once.
Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee 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's long reign of fifty 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. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, 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?
RE:LIES AGAINST THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 13, 2007 03:57 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 the chief mediator between the court and the village.... the Mughals attempted to co-opt the zamindars into the mansabdari system..
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.
RE:LIES AGAINST THE EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 13, 2007 03:58 AM Permalink
He destroyed Hindu temples because his Allah commanded him to do so:
Koran 17:16-17 When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly. How many generations have we destroyed after Noah? And enough is thy Lord to note and see the Sins of his servants
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE MOGHUL EMPEROR WAS GREAT GREAT RULER. HE UNITED ALL TINY STATE AND GIVEN DIGNIFIED NAME "HINDUSTAN". HE RULED MORE THAN 50 YEARS.
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 GREAT EMPEROR
by Secular Indian on Mar 13, 2007 04:01 AM Permalink
He was a terrible ruler and it's depressing to see that the hatred towards Hindus is ingrained in the Muslim mind that in todays modern India there exist people that are willing to shut their eyes to the truth. All this to defend a tyrant that probably tortured their ancestors.
Hindu society is divided based on profession to organise well. all the castes are professional names.
Like take any house,generally it has hall,bed room, kitchen,bath room etc.
so house is divided based on functionality that we performed there.
Unquote
Thats means the ST/SC and Dalits are Toilet (Sundas) in the Home and they will remain till the next(janam) coming. If he does something wrong he will remain in Toilet till seven comings (Janam). If did obey and did wrong then he will become dog and will be remained outside the house. Come-on, you people just funny and senseless humor.
RE:Hindu society is divided based on profession to organise well. all the castes are professional names.
by biju nair on Mar 12, 2007 08:55 PM Permalink
Mr.Rafiuddin,
This is great stuff. Don't disclose your brilliance. Write a novel with Aurangazeb and Sc/ST. You will defenitely win NOBEL prize.
RE:RE:Hindu society is divided based on profession to organise well. all the castes are professional names.
by rafiuddin farooqui on Mar 12, 2007 09:43 PM Permalink
It is truth that we are noble and honest guys. Keep Nobel Prize for you. We do not need ranks and medals. Our gives this rewards to Francois Gautier to write some more anti-Muslim Work.
RE:RE:RE:Hindu society is divided based on profession to organise well. all the castes are professional names.
by Rasheed on Mar 12, 2007 09:46 PM Permalink
Gautier has his priorities. Jews and Hindus are pals, Muslims are definitely out.
RE:RE:Hindu society is divided based on profession to organise well. all the castes are professional names.
by rafiuddin farooqui on Mar 13, 2007 12:35 AM Permalink
It is pity you can not do anything just abuse. you lost generation misguided by RSS GANGS and Goons.
RE:RE:RE:Hindu society is divided based on profession to organise well. all the castes are professional names.
by Secular Indian on Mar 13, 2007 05:08 AM Permalink
It's a pity that you keep repeating your lies over and over again.
A great King Ashoka the Great. After killing Millions of people realized that the Brahamanism the present Hinduism ( Hindutva ) is very very bad so he shunned Hinduism and become Buddhist. The king killed Millions still regarded and he degraded Hinduism his Chakara in the Indian Flag. You people lost intelligence Case and Bad Conscience case. Need rehlabilition and treatment.
