It is alleged that Hindus and Muslims kept fighting with each other. Many examples are quoted for this. We will try to understand some of these. One such major fight, which forms the base of our %u201Cunderstanding%u201D is the battle between Rana Pratap and Akbar. Rana Pratap is glorified as a brave and glorious Hindu king fighting against Islam. Why did this battle take place? Was it for some religious motive? To begin with, was It a Hindu-Muslim battle? Raja Mansingh represented Akbar in this battle. Shahazada Salim assisted him in this battle. Rana Pratap had Rajput soldiers under him and Salim had Muslim soldiers. On the other hand,Rana Pratap%u2019s major associate was Hakim Khan Sur. Rana Pratap had Rajput soldiers under him and Hakim Khan Sur had Muslim soldiers under him. So on both the sides we see Hindu and Muslim soldiers and generals. The battle took place not on the issue of religion, but on the ground of designation. Akbar was expanding his empire and was offering different designations to different kings. He offered the Panch Hazari (One who can keep five thousand soldiers) status to Rana Pratap, which he refused to accept, as he was demanding the status of Das Hazari (Tenthousand soldiers). Later Jahangir offered the same status Das Hazari to Rana Pratap%u2019s son Amarsingh and Amarsingh gladly became Jahangir%u2019s associate. But the communalists see it only through the jaundiced eyes of religion and present a picture, which projects it in a totally distorted light.
Hindus had a large presence in Mughal administration. We all know that out of the nine jewels of Akbar%u2019s crown Navratna, two of them Todarmal and Birbal were Hindus. In Shahjahan%u2019s administration, the number of Hindu kings was 24% and this number went up to 34% in the reign of King Aurangzeb. There are accounts in History where Parmar kings especially Shubhatvarman got many a Jain temples destroyed. Similarly King Shashank of Gauda got the Bodhi tree cut off. We have to understand that religion was not the major motive of king%u2019s action. On the contrary, kings used the name of religion for their actions. Hindu kings also destroyed temples, Muslim kings destroyed temples and mosques both.
RE:Temple Distruction
by Anshuman Mishra on Feb 17, 2007 12:28 AM Permalink
he destroyed the major hindu shrines to show scare the hindus and send a terror amongst them. Yes, had he wanted, he would have destroyed all. He destroyed the major ones to demoralise the population.
Francois Gautier In India in true hindu spirit we never wrote history. If there is something good we can give to future generations we document it like vedas ,upandishads, yoga and tantra. We care only people who has something good to offer and document only good things that we can give to future generations. I suggest you should find better things to do
RE:History is unnecessary
by V H on Feb 16, 2007 11:47 PM Permalink
Naga - don't we have Romila's to document good things about Aurangzeb's, Babar's and others? Don't you think we need Francois to complete the rest of the document?
RE:RE:History is unnecessary
by Indian Muslim on Feb 16, 2007 11:51 PM Permalink
I have just one question for you VH. Answer me being honest with yourself .
How much hatred do you have for current-day muslims after reading the article ?
No need to be politically correct. I have seen enough hatred on the message boards , one more wont make any difference.
I just want to show you the intention of the Author - hate mongering. Thats all.
RE:RE:RE:History is unnecessary
by V H on Feb 16, 2007 11:55 PM Permalink
Indian Muslim - Stop playing victim. Show some intellect instead of ignorance about everything
RE:RE:RE:RE:History is unnecessary
by Indian Muslim on Feb 17, 2007 12:07 AM Permalink
What intellect do you want me to show to you ? How do you want me to show it ? Please tell me I will be glad to know ..
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:History is unnecessary
by V H on Feb 17, 2007 12:47 AM Permalink
You are basically agreeing with me for the most part. Then why fight with me go fight your cousins who are still in 6th century. Message board savagery is nothing compared to what followers of Islam do everyday on Indian streets. I have witnessed first hand.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:History is unnecessary
by Indian Muslim on Feb 17, 2007 12:41 AM Permalink
VH : This is for you.
Keeping my name as Indian Muslim, is MY CHOICE. IF you can keep VH , Do i question you on that?
What are you first by the way ?
Indian Muslim, as in an Indian following Islam as his religion . Whats Oxymoronic in that?
2) I am not against Common Civil Code. But I do want it to be a "Common" Code, Not a code which VH wants! You wouldnt ask the Kashmiris would you ? No, You would ask only whom you can show your power to.
3) I am not defending anybody over here. Ok. Throghout my years of growing, I read the same text book as you did.That Aurangzeb was hostile to hindus, and imposed Jaziya, converted hindus to muslims. I dont want to bring Shivaji neither do i support any looters or rapists.
If you really are against savagery then see the message board for yourself. The replies to Francois Article is Intellectual Savagery.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:History is unnecessary
by V H on Feb 17, 2007 01:10 AM Permalink
The savagery I am talking is the number of BJP leaders being murdered across india on a daily basis. IM are confused people. We bring up the past you say come to present, we bring up present day issues like civil code etc, you say lets go back!!
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:History is unnecessary
by V H on Feb 17, 2007 12:27 AM Permalink
Stupid question. Though let me answer it, I am not anti-muslim, but I am anti-savagery.
Now to the intellectual part.
1) Why are you Indian Muslim...be human first and then an Indian. Indian Muslim is oxymoronic since all muslims are same since your rear points to one longitude and latitude.
2) Why in 2007 Kashimiri muslims passing Sharia law. Hindus want common civil code based on modern times. Why are you against it
3) If you are Indian muslim why are you defending invaders from outside who looted and raped this country? Dont bring concocted AIT theory and say everying is foreign in this land. Also stop bringing Shivaji here becoz Shivaji was defending native land and culture.
In ancient Greece (469 - 399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance that ran up to him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students called Plato?" "Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before you tell me I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test". "Triple filter?" "That's right," Socrates continued. "Before you talk to me about my student let's take a moment to filter what you're going to say. The first Filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?" "No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it and..." "All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second filter, the Filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?" "No, on the contrary..." "So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him, even though you're not certain it's true?" The man shrugged, a little embarrassed. Socrates continued. "You may still pass the test though, because there is a third filter - the Filter of usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?" "No, not really..." "Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good, nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?" The man was defeated and ashamed. This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.
RE:Dont report abuse its a fact - Francois Gautier is a anti-muslim
by V H on Feb 16, 2007 11:52 PM Permalink
Oh god - did you read what he wrote about Sufis and Kashmiris? Don't be same old Mir Qasim please!
