Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.
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?
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.
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.
Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition ofthe 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's 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.
It should be pointed out here that 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 paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.
While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.
RE:Reply to all your queries - Read Carefully and do not read safronized material otherwise you will get Jaundice
by alok kumar on Mar 12, 2007 09:06 AM Permalink
Farooqui seems to be related to Aurangzeb...
RE:Reply to all your queries - Read Carefully and do not read safronized material otherwise you will get Jaundice
by Secular Indian on Mar 12, 2007 04:16 AM Permalink
Aurangzeb was a religious bigot and actively promoted forced conversions of Hindus to Islam. By passing discriminatory laws based on the Shariat he created the conditions for his administrators to actively pursue his forced conversion agenda. He didn't go from house to house to convert people he didn't need to his job was to create the conditions within which he plan would be implemented, thats what rulers do.
e.g.,
From "The Mughal Empire", John F. Richards. Pg. 176
Zealous imperial officers had considerable power to enforce the new edicts, especially among the urban non-warrior groups. At Surat in 1669 the qazi terrorized the entire Bania or Hindu merchant community of that city. He pressured several members of the community to convert to Islam and threatened others with forcible conversions unless they paid ransom money. He extorted other sums to prevent defacement of the Hindu temples and shrines in the city. The qazi forcibly circumsized and converted a Bania serving as a Persian writer or clerk, who then killed himself.
Regarding Jizya ...
.. the Hindus crowded from the gate to the fort to the Jama Masjid in large numbers to for imploring redress ... [Aurangzeb], who was riding on an elephant, could not reach the mosque...Then he ordered the majestic elephants should proceed against them. Some of them [Hindus] were killed ... at last then submitted to pay the Jiziyah.
Aurangzeb's ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversions was a sure way to the empeor's favor.. In many disputed successions for hereditary local office Aurangzeb chose candidates who had converted to Islam over the rivals. Pragana headmen and qanungos or recordkeepers were targeted especially for pressure to convert.
Regarding Hindus serving for Mughal emperors especially Aurangzeb. These were alliances of convenience (in fact Indians should take note what happens when they fight amongst themselves). Aurangzeb had made the titles hereditary and the Hindu Zamindars wanted to legitimise their rule. Tactically this was a smart move by Aurangzeb to get the Hindus rulers into his orbit by getting them onside and then sorting them out one by one, divide and rule. Jaswant Singh is a case in point, just after he died all temples in his kingdom were destroyed. Earlier the mansabdari system too was created to incorporate these "civilized" and settled centres of society, by Akbar, it was based on sem-meritocracy to enable non-muslims to rise to a position of some power. Aurangzeb simply used it as a divide and rule instrument.
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 army list 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 people 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..
To me it all looks they did it for their personal gain, some Hindus were willing to sell out on their Dharma, no more. Secondly the figure of 143 mansabdars in Aurangzebs court simply means that there weren't enough educated Muslims to do the administrative work of the ever expanding empire and Aurangzebs clever use of bribing the Hindu rajas with official titles. It doesn't in any way detract from his zealotry.
RE:Reply to all your queries - Read Carefully and do not read safronized material otherwise you will get Jaundice
by Secular Indian on Mar 12, 2007 04:17 AM Permalink
The Jaziyah argument cuts both ways, if as the author claims that it's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay for not joining the army, then that forces the poorer sections of society to convert or join the arm y therefore inflating the Hindu numbers in the army. This conclusively proves that the whole aim of Aurangzeb's re imposition of Jaziyah was win-win for him. Get the Hindus to convert or at least get them to fight other Hindus and convert them.
Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.
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?
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 kn
Quote Firstly, I have been a close student of Indian history, and one of its most controversial figures has been Aurangzeb (1658-1707). It is true that under him the Mughal empire reached its zenith
Unquote
On above mr Francois Gautier claim he is a close student. He doesnt know What FARMAN. Aurangzeb edict called FARMANS. These are basic documents of Aurangzeb reign. The guy who say Farman to Farhan is to total bogus and Cheat. His work is bogus and it is total research work of RSS GANG. The guy may got VISH KANNIYA and HANDSOME REWARDS. This is the practice of these guys.
quote
There are an incredible number of farhans, original edicts of Aurangzeb hand-written in Persian, in India's museums, particularly in Rajasthan, such as the Bikaner archives. It was not always easy to sca Unquote
This is the RSS/BJP's is agenda to say filth against secular Hindu Leaders. Make poisonous minds of Hindu youth against National Leaders and Secular Parties.
Quote
Even Indian politicians are ignorant of Aurangzeb's evil deeds. Nehru might have known about them, but for his own reasons he chose to keep quiet and instructed his historians to downplay Aurangzeb's destructive drive and instead praise him as a benefactor of arts.
Since then six generations of Marxist historians have done the same and betrayed their allegiance to truth
Unquote
You know to whom the auth addressing and what he is saying. Do some home work dont cry. You people just lost the game. Truth is Truth. The fabrication has its own flaws.
RE:Jewels from the Francois Gautier Articles.
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Mar 11, 2007 08:55 PM Permalink
"Farman" Or "Farhan" ... as long it is authorised by your Alamgir Aurangzeb ..how does it matter ? content is important !! isn't it ?
RE:RE:Jewels from the Francois Gautier Articles.
by rafiuddin farooqui on Mar 11, 2007 09:07 PM Permalink
Oh Fool you doesnt understand that a person so close student he must know the Farmans are the record not Farhan. The person he claims he is grat scholar he doesnt know the basic document correctly he is fraud. May somebody wrongly given anything FARHANS which were not Aurangzeb's edicts.
RE:Jewels from the Francois Gautier Articles.
by rahim on Mar 11, 2007 08:50 PM Permalink
Dear rafiq and Mike Aurangazeb was a devil in human form.let us agree that stop base less arguments says he was a great emporor. He has murdered millions of hindus and destroyed their hundreds of temples. If we accept the truth our hindu brothers will appreciates us and think that we are truely secular people. Supporters of aurangazeb should appolige the nation and support hindu brothers for rebuilding their temples.
let us not support this killer aurangazeb . Islam is a religion of peace let us prove once again.
RE:RE:Jewels from the Francois Gautier Articles.
by rahim on Mar 11, 2007 09:09 PM Permalink
Dear rahim
Well said you are the true seculsr muslim.India fells proud of you.Muslims like you should teach Rafiq and Mike what kind of devil aurangazeb.We should request historians to remove this devil from history
1 why Tipu Ki Auladein. Even Dalip Singh S/o Ranjit Singh payed Heavy Price. All 4 Sons Of Guru Govind Singh were on the Killed. 2. Lots like Bhagat Singh/ Azad etc. Sacrificed their Lives. and they were better and great than Tipu reason Obvious known to all. 3. Sins of One Scindia can not force other Scindias to be blamed for that one.
RE:Tipu ki Auladein
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 11, 2007 09:15 PM Permalink
in your words "sins of one scindia can not force other schindias to be for that one". Then RSS's kuttas killing innocents christians, muslims and dalits in the name of ram ?????
RE:RE:Tipu ki Auladein
by tribhuwan pandey on Mar 11, 2007 09:24 PM Permalink
You Fool hardy, Where has come RSS/ RAM/ALLAH/ in Between Tipu/ Aurangzeb. Wrong done By any One is Wrong. Stop Barking like Fool.
Mike it seems that you would not put any thing staright or you can not? 1.Tipu fought against British/ Sought Help from France it is always taken in high regrads but it does not mean that what he did to his Hindu Subject was Right. 2. As far as Scindia are concerned they were among culprits of 1857 No Doubt . have heard In poem jhansi Ki rani (angrezon ka mitra Scindia) and he was gaddar from that point too. But please do not make it general in 1857 or before the concept of Indian Union did Not . exisit. Nizam/ Sikh/Rajputs/ Bengal ka Nawab/ these states and many Muslim Princely States too did Not support 1857 or even 1757/1764/1849 etc. Even Holkers also Did No participate. Entire J&k, Pathan Belt was quiet. so if tipu/Peshwa/Jafar/ Hazrat Mahal/ Laxmi bai fought, it more was for States than Nation. again Tipu was ditched by a gang of his Trusted Muslim Nobles in Court of Sri Rangapattanam along with maharaja of Mysore (Wadiars) from whom his father has snatched throne. Gandhi, Muslim or HINDU Ruler be it any were they all were Defetaed due to their own trusted persons. remeber Palssey/ Buxar/ Surrender of Jafar/ in all thses cases muslims have ditched muslims. and Concept of Biradran e Majhab(all madarsa going mullahs know it) failed like any thing. so get out from half known theories promoted showing uslim supremacy and align in the direction of Moder India.
RE:Again Biased
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 11, 2007 09:25 PM Permalink
you are lost intelligence case and bad conscience. so you cannot respect the glorious history of our India. It was Shahenshah Aurangzeb who united the tiny states in huge Hindutan. Otherwise you may come to visit delhi by holding marathi passport. After the fall of the Moghal Empire these traitors (Nzam, Marhatas, Sikh, Rajputs, Bengal ka Nawab, these states and many Muslim Princely States
RE:RE:Again Biased
by tribhuwan pandey on Mar 11, 2007 09:41 PM Permalink
idiot, put like this it was aurangzeb paved way for Fall of Mughal Empire.how come only one was patriot and all others were traitors. every one was fighting for one's State.
Many of the problems with interpreting history result from our tendency to either idolize or demonize historical figures, rather than analysing them. That is why we never learn from history. Let me explain this in the context of Tipu. Consider the following facts. ----------------- Tipu was a great warrior against the British colonialists. But at the same time, he aligned himself with the French, who were not in India with noble intentions either. He was very well-read in multiple languages and knew Kannada, Urdu and Marathi fluently besides of course Persian. But he did change the court language to Persian despite the fact that a majority of his own officials did not know the language. He gave a lot of money for the development and maintenance of the Sri Ranganatha temple inside his fort city of Srirangapatnam. He banned many practices in Mysore based on blind superstition rather than any religious philosophy. Yet, he also promoted acts of blind superstition. He was generally fair towards his non-Muslim subjects. The point is that he, like many other great historical figures, was a complex person, with many facets to his personality. We do injustice not just to history but also to ourselves by looking unilaterally at only one aspect of his character and ignoring the others. On the one hand, those who idolize Tipu tend to gloss over many of the negative aspects of his character, that are historically well-recorded. On the other hand, others like the BJP minister in Karnataka, ignore all the positive aspects while highlighting the negative aspects. An opposite situation exists in the analysis of a figure like Shivaji - another great historical character who is either idolized or demonized, but not analyzed in all his complexity. By not analyzing these figures and idolizing/demonizing them, we not just open ourselves to legitimate charges of hypocrisy. But we also ensure that we will never learn from history. We seem to be happy in living in a world of fantasy. It may provide momentary gratification. But it works against our interests in the long term.
Yahi to kamaal hai BHARATWASIYOON KA KI Tipu Sultan died fighting the British but his Muslim names prevents him from being a freedom fighter. On one hand a 'shaheed' is disrespected while traitors like Scindias have not only been forgiven but their scions have placed themselves well in all political parties (Congress and BJP) and have been appropriated for siding with British ;) Lot could be learnt from the likes of Vasundhara, Yashodhara, Jyotiraditya, all Scindias, and similar families. The fate of Tipu Sultan's descendants is known to everybody.
RE:TIPU SULTAN
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 07:34 PM Permalink
The anthology includes excerpts from Tipu's letters as researched by the distinguished Kerala historian K. M. Panicker, which he reviewed in the Bhasha Poshini magazine, August 1923:
1. Letter dated March 22, 1788, to Abdul Kadir: "Over 12,000 Hindus were honoured with Islam. There were many Namboodri Brahmins among them. This achievement should be widely publicised among the Hindus. Then the local Hindus should be brought before you and converted to Islam. No Namboodri Brahmin should be spared. "
2. Letter dated December 14, 1788, to his army chief in Calicut: " I am sending two of my followers with Mir Hussain Ali. With their assistance, you should capture and kill all Hindus. Those below 20 may be kept in prison and 5000 from the rest should be killed from the tree-tops. These are my orders."
3. Letter dated January 18, 1790, to Syed Abdul Dulai: " ...almost all Hindus in Calicut are converted to Islam. I consider this as Jehad."
The anthology also quotes from A Voyage to the East Indies by Fra Barthoelomeo, a renowned Portuguese traveller and historian, who was present in Tipu's war zone in early 1790:
"First a corps of 30,000 barbarians who butchered everybody on the way ... followed by the field gun unit under the French commander, M. Lally. Tipu was riding on an elephant behind which another army of 30,000 soldiers followed. Most of the men and women were hanged in Calicut, first mothers were hanged with their children tied to necks of mothers. That barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christian and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants to move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces. Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated, and destroyed. ... Those Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately. These atrocities were told to me by the victims of Tipu Sultan who escaped from the clutches of his army and reached Varapphuza, which is the centre of Carmichael Christian Mission. I myself helped many victims to cross the Varapphuza river by boats."
Moreover, evidence of Tipu's atrocities abounds in many contemporary church records in Mangalore, Calicut, and Varapphuza.
RE:TIPU SULTAN
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 07:38 PM Permalink
Perhaps his portrait should be hung in the Arab imperial hall of fame in Saudia Arabia. A butcher of Hindus is no hero of Indians. He was simply promoting Arab imperialism in India using their military doctrine called Islam.
RE:RE:TIPU SULTAN
by amjadhussain on Mar 11, 2007 08:02 PM Permalink
Hi I am here. You people still stick here and all are barking same song. take breath and think. You people are saying so. But you go to oxford, cambridge, washing University or any Indian Libraries and open their records you find that it is written The Great Moghul Emporer Aurangzeb with Golden. The tiny deep could outclassed the Great Sun. Say Jay Aurangzeb and keep quite.
RE:RE:RE:TIPU SULTAN
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 11, 2007 08:14 PM Permalink
libraries maintain standards amjad. That is why people reach them because they try to keep records of best analyzers. Not Mullah brainwashed filth.
RE:RE:RE:RE:TIPU SULTAN
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 11, 2007 08:21 PM Permalink
and of course they also keep a record of books used by satan worshippers. Not a bad idea to know the devil before it's hunted. The more you learn about it, the better the efficiency in limiting it's rule.
One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Banaras (Varanasi). That was a fact, but Dr Pande unravelled the reason for it. 'While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed.
'Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey on the palkis [palanquins]. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja [worship] all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.
'When Aurangzeb came to know of this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh [the elephant-headed god which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath's seat.'
RE:LIES AGAINST EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 07:14 PM Permalink
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 rebels and the pandits of the temple existed and it was primarily to smash this nexu
The late scholar and historian, Dr. Bishambhar Nath Pande%u2019s research efforts exploded myths on Aurangzeb%u2019s rule. They also offer an excellent example of what history has to teach us if only we study it dispassionately
The Muslim rule in India lasted for almost 1,000 years. How come then, asked the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, that Hindus %u201Chad not left any account which could enable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them?%u201D Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight%u2013volume History of India from with contributions from British historians (1867). His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with %u2018Muhammedans%u2019, generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions, their idols were mutilated, their temples destroyed, they were forced into conversions and marriages, and were killed and massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants. Thus Sir Henry, and scores of other Empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu versus Muslim history of India, and their lies became history.
However, the noted Indian scholar and historian, Dr Bishambhar Nath Pande, who passed away in New Delhi on June 1, 1998, ranked among the very few Indians and fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be a little careful when dealing with such history. He knew that this history was %u2018originally compiled by European writers%u2019 whose main objective was to produce a history that would serve their policy of divide and rule.
Lord Curzon (Governor General of India 1895%u201399 and Viceroy 1899%u20131904 (d.1925) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they should %u201Cso plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened%u201D.
Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884%u201388), was advised by the Secretary of State in London that the %u201Cdivision of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage%u201D, and that he expected %u201Csome good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and on teaching material%u201D.
%u201CWe have maintained our power in India by playing%u2013off one part against the other%u201D, the Secretary of State for India reminded yet another Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862%u201363), %u201Cand we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.%u201D
In his famous Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr Pande said: %u201CThus under a definite policy the Indian history text%u2013books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval (i.e., Muslim) period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule. And there were no com
RE:LIES AGAINST EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 07:02 PM Permalink
Aurangzeb was a religious bigot and actively promoted forced conversions of Hindus to Islam. By passing discriminatory laws based on the Shariat he created the conditions for his administrators to actively pursue his forced conversion agenda. He didn't go from house to house to convert people he didn't need to his job was to create the conditions within which he plan would be implemented, thats what rulers do.
e.g.,
From "The Mughal Empire", John F. Richards. Pg. 176
Zealous imperial officers had considerable power to enforce the new edicts, especially among the urban non-warrior groups. At Surat in 1669 the qazi terrorized the entire Bania or Hindu merchant community of that city. He pressured several members of the community to convert to Islam and threatened others with forcible conversions unless they paid ransom money. He extorted other sums to prevent defacement of the Hindu temples and shrines in the city. The qazi forcibly circumsized and converted a Bania serving as a Persian writer or clerk, who then killed himself.
Regarding Jizya ...
.. the Hindus crowded from the gate to the fort to the Jama Masjid in large numbers to for imploring redress ... [Aurangzeb], who was riding on an elephant, could not reach the mosque...Then he ordered the majestic elephants should proceed against them. Some of them [Hindus] were killed ... at last then submitted to pay the Jiziyah.
Aurangzeb's ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversions was a sure way to the empeor's favor.. In many disputed successions for hereditary local office Aurangzeb chose candidates who had converted to Islam over the rivals. Pragana headmen and qanungos or recordkeepers were targeted especially for pressure to convert.
Regarding Hindus serving for Mughal emperors especially Aurangzeb. These were alliances of convenience (in fact Indians should take note what happens when they fight amongst themselves). Aurangzeb had made the titles hereditary and the Hindu Zamindars wanted to legitimise their rule. Tactically this was a smart move by Aurangzeb to get the Hindus rulers into his orbit by getting them onside and then sorting them out one by one, divide and rule. Jaswant Singh is a case in point, just after he died all temples in his kingdom were destroyed. Earlier the mansabdari system too was created to incorporate these "civilized" and settled centres of society, by Akbar, it was based on sem-meritocracy to enable non-muslims to rise to a position of some power. Aurangzeb simply used it as a divide and rule instrument.
From: "Mughal warfare: Indian Frontiers and Highroads to Empire 1500-1700" by Jos J. L. Gommans. Page 40.
RE:LIES AGAINST EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 11, 2007 07:05 PM Permalink
The Jaziyah argument cuts both ways, if as the author claims that it's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay for not joining the army, then that forces the poorer sections of society to convert or join the arm y therefore inflating the Hindu numbers in the army. This conclusively proves that the whole aim of Aurangzeb's re imposition of Jaziyah was win-win for him. Get the Hindus to convert or at least get them to fight other Hindus and convert them.
by tribhuwan pandey on Mar 11, 2007 06:42 PM yeah Suggestion is simple and proven. Remember Mustafa Kamal Ata Turk of Turkey who made Muslim Dominated Arab country as Modern TUrkey with Democracy. remenber Indonesia always remebeing its glorious past which is not Muslim. Remeber Dubai most Progressive Arab because of its liberal policies. as for as Law and order is concerned I agree there should be one book of laws and code irrespective of cast creed faith religonn sex or status. Why to opt Aurangzeb Most controversial Ruler of Indian History we can take Samudragupta/ Chandragupta Muraya/ Balban/ SherShah Suri/ Akbar/ Shivaji/ Chand Bibi/ Durgawati/ and lots other if required i will write about each individaul. The Nation Is India Call it Bharat Mata(Madre Watan)/Hindusthan/ Hindutan/ Bharat; what ever you wish it all is about feeiling and regard. One More thing Mr. Mike Gandhi Always Remember that any indian has his lost refugee in one country only that is india. Remeber Paki Mohajirs/ Bangaldeshi Mushlims/ Indian Muslims and their Plight in Arab Countries is lke their Indian Hindu Counter part. So Dear Stop Thinking on the Lines of Marxists Idiaots and use ur Skills to Tell the reality of History. GOt IT! as far as RSS/ Bajrangdal/is concerned so every relogion has this type of elemnets but These outfits stand no where when compared to Al Quaida/Talibans/Lasker e Jahngvi and Allah Knows how many other. As far as Aurangzeb or any Dictator is concerned always remebr that those who live by Sword are killed by Sword. Sddam hussain/Gaddfi(lost His family)are not very old examples.
Although some may agree that Aurangzeb was a cruel ruler, he was not an ideal example for Islam, so the writer must not generalize Islam everywhere with the Islam followed by Aurangzeb, because he didn't follow the religion correctly. Truly Aurangzeb didn't represent the true face of Islam, so please don't think of Islam as represented by Aurangzeb. Islam is a religion of peace and not violence. Islam also says that we Muslims should stay in harmony with other religions and not force them anything. But there are some people who spoil the name of Islam by not following it correctly, as is also the case with other religions like Hinduism, Christianity, etc...
The writer also does not have the undertsanding of the religion of Islam and hence should not tell that the religion is not relevant in today's world. Islam is very relevant in today's world ( even if the scriptures had been written 15 centuries ago ) and needs to be followed correctly ( not adopted to todays' situations ) to make this world a better place for all of us to leave peacefully.
