Is there any historical documentary evidence that Rama ruled India? No. Can the so called Brahmin Scholars quote any Western historian to their support? On the other hand they tell us without any historical evidence. That an Aryan (god Rama) had ruled India. Since Rama was a Brahmin he would have come from Central Asia as any other Aryan. Hence he is an invader. How can Rama claim India to be his.
RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Vaj on Mar 07, 2007 05:56 PM Permalink
Evidence from the Vedas It was therefore concluded that light-skinned nomads from Central Asia who wiped out the indigenous culture and enslaved or butchered the people, imposing their alien culture upon them had invaded the Indian subcontinent. They then wrote down their exploits in the form of the Rg Veda. This hypothesis was apparently based upon references in the Vedas that point to a conflict between the light-skinned Aryans and the dark-skinned Dasyus. 2 This theory was strengthened by the archeological discoveries in the Indus Valley of the charred skeletal remains that we have mentioned above. Thus the Vedas became nothing more than a series of poetic tales about the skirmishes between two barbaric tribes.
However, there are other references in the Rg Veda 3 that point to India being a land of mixed races. The Rg Veda also states that "We pray to Indra to give glory by which the Dasyus will become Aryans." 4 Such a statement confirms that to be an Aryan was not a matter of birth.
RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Secular Indian on Mar 07, 2007 06:01 PM Permalink
There is no evidence in the Vedas, the word Aryan itself is made up by Max Mueller. The vediv people refer to people of nobility as aryas. There is no archaeological evidence to support it. Finally even the encyclopedia Britannica which is rather conservative in these matters have put a question mark next to it. So please fix your ignorance first.
RE:RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 07, 2007 08:51 PM Permalink
The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (born 1618, reigned 1658-1707) is the most reviled of all Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples and oppressor of Hindus, and a 'fundamentalist' too! As chairman of the Allahabad Municipality (1948-53), Dr Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some farmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr Pande thought, in view of Aurangzeb's fanatically anti-Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic and Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents and declared they were genuine farmans issued by Aurangzeb.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Secular Indian on Mar 08, 2007 05:17 AM Permalink
Why is it that Muslims think that if a Hindu says so then it must be true ? Is it because they can't think for themselves, Mike Gandhi certainly lives up to that reputation.
RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 07, 2007 06:16 PM Permalink
say the same thing to a hardcore Shir Ram worshipper and see what happens to you.
RE:RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Vaj on Mar 07, 2007 06:29 PM Permalink
Look at his age when he broke the bow. When God Rama broke this bow, according to his mother, he was then 5 years old, according to his father, he was about 10. According to his wife (Sita) his age was 12. Whatever it might be but it was already a broken is true according to the story.
RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Secular Indian on Mar 07, 2007 06:25 PM Permalink
Hinduism is not like Islam, you will find that your claim regarding Ram doesn't offend all Hindus. It really is quite amazing that (if you are an Indian) you are clueless about the basics of Hinduism.
RE:RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Vaj on Mar 07, 2007 06:38 PM Permalink
HINDUISM IS NOT A RELIGION ,It may be true that the Ramayna and Mahabarath are famous stories of the past. But there is no scientific proof to authenticate such stories. For example. If Hanuman built a bridge, where is it now ? All the above stories are saying as though India was the whole Universe. How can one accept that a river and moon is on the head of Lord Shiva. If the river is on Sivas head the moon also should be next to that, i. e. on the Himalayas!
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Secular Indian on Mar 07, 2007 06:47 PM Permalink
If the story doesn't make sense then it's crap, I agree with you. Given that you've learned something new today, why don't you now apply your new found critical thinking to the Koran, just for fun
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Secular Indian on Mar 07, 2007 06:45 PM Permalink
Yeah, it's a story but even if you got rid of the Ramayan and the Mahabharat there would still be Hinduism. If you got rid of the Koran there would be no Islam. Hinduism is a lot more than two books. If you bother to read the Rig Veda and the "Hymn of creation", you will perhaps get a better understanding. To Hindus it doesn't matter that some books have contradictions, it's actually irrelevant. You are wasting your time.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Secular Indian on Mar 07, 2007 06:51 PM Permalink
Lets apply your new found interest in the scientific method to the the Islamic legend of Muhammad%u2019s journey on flying horse from Makkah (Mecca) to Jerusalem.
RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 07, 2007 08:52 PM Permalink
The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (born 1618, reigned 1658-1707) is the most reviled of all Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples and oppressor of Hindus, and a 'fundamentalist' too! As chairman of the Allahabad Municipality (1948-53), Dr Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some farmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr Pande thought, in view of Aurangzeb's fanatically anti-Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic and Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents and declared they were genuine farmans issued by Aurangzeb.
RE:RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Secular Indian on Mar 08, 2007 05:22 AM Permalink
By posting the same drivel over and over again will not make it the truth, this may have been the preferred method at the Madrassah from where you graduated but I'm sorry to have to disappoint you, but it doesn't actually work in the real world. Many have tried but alas failed. You may have to look in the Koran again perhaps in the science section. I hope that helps.
RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Sheikh Hasina on Mar 07, 2007 06:03 PM Permalink
Neither was Lord Rama a Brahmin, nor did any Aryan invade the country. Refresh your knowledge and at least do basic research when you are writing. By the way, NASA has discovered the Rama Setu, on the ocean floor, a 48x1.2 km manually made bridge of rock. It was over water up to 500 years ago. Only rising ocean water has submerged it on the ocean floor. Aryans migrated to Central Asia from Bharat and not the other way around as Max Mueller had theorised only to not offend biblical teaching
RE:RE:NO HISTORICAL PROOF
by Fauwad Hurzuk on Mar 07, 2007 08:31 PM Permalink
brave and outspoken people do not disguise under false identities... Hope you get what I mean.
WHY THE FANATIC HINDUS OPPOSING OSCAR AWARD NOMINEE FILM "WATER"? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE - REALITY OF COMMON HINDUS GIRLS AND CRUALITY OF UPPER CAST HINDUS.
RE:WHY YOU OPPOSE DEEPA MEHTA FILM ''WATER''
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 07, 2007 05:47 PM Permalink
You are true. It was an outdated practice. People still follow it in some places but it has reduced. But you have no moral right to talk about it when you call Hindus gods with abusive names.
RE:RE:WHY YOU OPPOSE DEEPA MEHTA FILM ''WATER''
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 07, 2007 06:11 PM Permalink
you stop first to abusing Islam and Muslim. So ladies first
keep on repeating/writting the truths, so that FALSE/lies/propaganda would survive no more.
Man is earthly by nature.
the way, if one does not sow paddy/wheat/flowers etc in his farm-feild and just leaves it, harmful jungle and junglee animals will automatically come there.
NO NEED TO PREACH BAD THINGS. THEY AUTOMATICALLY COMES, ONCE YOU LEAVE TO PREACH GOOD THINGS.
RE:TRUTH SHOULD BE TOLD AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE.
by Dr_Ramanand Rao on Mar 08, 2007 08:38 AM Permalink
that's what has happened to Islam - bad things (misinterpretations) have come in
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?
By Dr. Habib Siddiqui
Posted: 9 Jamad-ul-awwal 1427, 5 June 2006
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 Man
RE:Emporer Aurnagzeb - Who united India and made Hindustan. He spent half of his life for the fighting with the terrorist and separatist like Shivajiis, Marhatas, Daccanis, Gujratis
by Krishna on Mar 07, 2007 05:50 PM Permalink
You guys are writing all this stuff as if u have gone back in time and seen with your own eyes. i cannot say i can agree/disagree with what u r writing. But certainly u should remember that u r simply baselessly criticising all those historians(both hindus and muslims) that they have projected the history wrongly. i request all the people who are reading these to check with the facts if they can and only then believe. Don't go by some few people's personal opinions and get a wrong picture of our history!
RE:RE:Emporer Aurnagzeb - Who united India and made Hindustan. He spent half of his life for the fighting with the terrorist and separatist like Shivajiis, Marhatas, Daccanis, Gujratis
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 07, 2007 08:54 PM Permalink
The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (born 1618, reigned 1658-1707) is the most reviled of all Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples and oppressor of Hindus, and a 'fundamentalist' too! As chairman of the Allahabad Municipality (1948-53), Dr Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some farmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr Pande thought, in view of Aurangzeb's fanatically anti-Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic and Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents and declared they were genuine farmans issued by Aurangzeb.
RE:RE:RE:Emporer Aurnagzeb - Who united India and made Hindustan. He spent half of his life for the fighting with the terrorist and separatist like Shivajiis, Marhatas, Daccanis, Gujratis
by Secular Indian on Mar 08, 2007 05:23 AM Permalink
By posting the same drivel over and over again will not make it the truth, this may have been the preferred method at the Madrassah from where you graduated but I'm sorry to have to disappoint you, but it doesn't actually work in the real world. Many have tried but alas failed. You may have to look in the Koran again perhaps in the science section. I hope that helps.
RE:Emporer Aurnagzeb - Who united India and made Hindustan. He spent half of his life for the fighting with the terrorist and separatist like Shivajiis, Marhatas, Daccanis, Gujratis
by Secular Indian on Mar 07, 2007 05:51 PM Permalink
Why don't you guys include the population of Porkistan and Beggardesh ?
RE:RE:Emporer Aurnagzeb - Who united India and made Hindustan. He spent half of his life for the fighting with the terrorist and separatist like Shivajiis, Marhatas, Daccanis, Gujratis
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 07, 2007 08:48 PM Permalink
WE INDIANS WANT AKHAND BHARAT. AND WANT TO UNITED INDIA INCLUDING PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH. THIS IS OUR WISH AND OUR DREAM. IF WE UNITED THEN WE CAN JOINTLY (MUSLIMS AND DALIT)FIGHT APARTHEID POLICIES OF ARYAN INVADERS AND KICK THEM OUT OF INDIA. SAME WAY AS IN SOME AFRICAN COUNTRIES DID THE WHITE RULERS.
RE:RE:RE:Emporer Aurnagzeb - Who united India and made Hindustan. He spent half of his life for the fighting with the terrorist and separatist like Shivajiis, Marhatas, Daccanis, Gujratis
by Secular Indian on Mar 08, 2007 05:24 AM Permalink
But there was no Aryan Invasion in the first place!
RE:RE:RE:Emporer Aurnagzeb - Who united India and made Hindustan. He spent half of his life for the fighting with the terrorist and separatist like Shivajiis, Marhatas, Daccanis, Gujratis
by Dr_Ramanand Rao on Mar 08, 2007 08:43 AM Permalink
If muslims take over India, god save the rest!
RE:Emporer Aurnagzeb - Who united India and made Hindustan. He spent half of his life for the fighting with the terrorist and separatist like Shivajiis, Marhatas, Daccanis, Gujratis
by rafiuddin farooqui on Mar 07, 2007 07:46 PM Permalink
Read man this his research and salute him. Mr francois guaitar has seen the reign of Aurangzeb. If he sayes true then this guy also saying truth. It will be hypocracy and double standard.
RE:Emporer Aurnagzeb - Who united India and made Hindustan. He spent half of his life for the fighting with the terrorist and separatist like Shivajiis, Marhatas, Daccanis, Gujratis
by Secular Indian on Mar 08, 2007 05:28 AM Permalink
More lies and double talk, lets just take the Jizya:
In states ruled by Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: %u062C%u0632%u0652%u064A%u0629; Ottoman Turkish cizye) is a per capita tax imposed on free non-Muslim adult males who are neither old nor sick nor monks [1], known as dhimmis, in exchange for being allowed to live, practice their faith, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy as well as being "entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression and being exempted from military service".[2] [3] Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"[4] (but now lower under the Muslim rule [2] [5] [6]) and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of the dhimmi's subjection.[4]
It goes way beyond the limited definition that the author would like us to believe. The days when people could write such articles and get away with such half-truths is gone. Long live the Internet!
brother dont fight on aurangzeb issue rather prove that we are all lover of peace by having a respectable views for the person who had died long before ,as every person or group has his own opinion and proof to support his view in order to proof aparticular person is good or bad.
so forget aurangzeb and make apledge that we work for peace.
Francois Gautier should visit India and meet the dawoodi bohras and ask the history of Aurangzeb's tyranny in his time to know the facts. The truth is very much alive to this day
RE:Aurangzeb was and is at fault
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 07, 2007 05:11 PM Permalink
yeah like the mosques in Mathura, Kashi etc. Truth is very much alive.
RE:RE:Aurangzeb was and is at fault
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 07, 2007 05:34 PM Permalink
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.
RE:RE:RE:Aurangzeb was and is at fault
by Secular Indian on Mar 07, 2007 05:57 PM Permalink
Alexander Hamilton was not a British Historian he was a Scottish seaman and he wrote a work of fiction based on the events around Aurangzebs time.
RE:RE:RE:Aurangzeb was and is at fault
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 07, 2007 05:43 PM Permalink
you are the guy who said something about Ayyappa as a gay god and something on shiv langam and dick. now your talking about saintliness of Aurangzeb. Good that people like you are not hiding your thoughts. But expressing it here. What else do you believe. That Hindus in India must kiss your ass for saying such things?
RE:RE:RE:Aurangzeb was and is at fault
by Secular Indian on Mar 07, 2007 05:52 PM Permalink
What about Guru Tegh Bahadur ? Where do you get this crap from ?
RE:RE:RE:Aurangzeb was and is at fault
by Krishna on Mar 07, 2007 05:53 PM Permalink
u r re-writing the history of india. i congratulate you. Tommorrow u might say Hitler was a saint and he did not order to kill jews and he was not the cause of World war 2.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Aurangzeb was and is at fault
by Krishna on Mar 07, 2007 05:54 PM Permalink
u r in an illusion or became insane. i pray God to help u GET WELL SOON!
He was good ruler and is Hero among Indians.Yes he was pious man. WE love him adhore him. It is compeltely false that he destroys HIndus. If it were true all the Hindus hav not prevaail. Infact he has themajority of Hindus in the Army and even generals. he was a self disciplinary mand and a broadminded. Yes he killed is brohters for not following Islam not for personal gains.Why u dont highlights his efficiencies and skills. He is our Hero and will be in the future.unus
RE:Truth of Aurangzeb
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 07, 2007 04:44 PM Permalink
If he is your hero, you are another newsense guy. I would really appreciate if people with such mindset who heroworship the guy come and express their views here. I want to make the head count.
RE:Truth of Aurangzeb
by Kamlesh Desai on Mar 07, 2007 05:01 PM Permalink
U want find any person in history, happy with Aurangzeb. He used his power and intellect to rule the country in cruel way. He did nothing creative in his entire tenure. Just kept expanding his teritorry. He put all his energy and efforts to convert maximum possible hindus to muslims and killed thousands who showed resistance.
RE:RE:Truth of Aurangzeb
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 07, 2007 05:35 PM Permalink
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.
RE:RE:RE:Truth of Aurangzeb
by Secular Indian on Mar 07, 2007 05:58 PM Permalink
Alexander Hamilton was not a British Historian he was a Scottish seaman and he wrote a work of fiction based on the events around Aurangzebs time.
I am surprised by the discussion going here. It is really useless to blame muslim and hindu kings,who are those serfish rulers which really differs from basic teachings of all religeons,so at present we need only peace and stability and unite india where every man can walk like freedom fighter and not to abuse one another
RE:RE:PLEASE ALL OF U READ THIS,
by abdul jeelani on Mar 07, 2007 04:53 PM Permalink
HOW WILL WIN ON THE BATTLE GROUND ? ONLY EVIL THOUGTS AFTER GETTING SO MANY DEATHS. Today before you think of saying an unkind word Think of someone who can't speak
Before you complain about the taste of your food Think of someone who has nothing to eat
Before you complain about your husband or wife Think of someone who's crying out to God for a companion
Today before you complain about life Think of someone who went too early to heaven
Before you complain about your children Think of someone who desires children but they're barren
Before you argue about your dirty house; someone didn't clean or sweep Think of the people who are living in the streets
Before whining about the distance you drive Think of someone who walks the same distance with their feet
And when you are tired and complain about your job Think of the unemployed, the disabled and those who wished they had your job
But before you think of pointing the finger or condemning another Remember that not one of us are without sin and we all answer to one maker
And when depressing thoughts seem to get you down Put a smile on your face and thank God you're alive and still around
Life is a gift Live it... Enjoy it... Celebrate it... And fulfill it.
And while you are at it give love to someone today Love someone with what you do and the words you say Love is not meant to be kept locked inside of us and hidden So give it away "Give Love to someone today!"
