While i appriciate authors efoort in coolecting facts, i totallty disagree with the inference and the innate misconception that his Last line brings froth. What does her mean by "bring back Islam to a more tolerant human face"? i thought this was about Aurangazeb and not islam. He pas poured out a lot of emotions. It is his freedom of expression, true, but is he willing to own up to how it can be perceived by people, who are divided already? i dont think so. He talks about Hitler, does he dare to attirbute hitler's curelty to all Germans? Does he think it makes sense? They y conclude that Islam doesnt have a tolerant human face.
while i agree with him that there has been pretty twisted history, facts hidden and skewed, it is done for a purpose. It is not always sensible to speak the truth. It is only important to speak that which makes sense in a given context. i will support him in his campaign to remove the ame of the emperor assigned to any governmental unit or property. But i aslo wish, the author was more secular in writing his feelings on the facts.
Francois Gautier has to give his own opinion.He is a foreigner doing research on what others have done.How much has francois Gautier read personally about Aurangzeb.He should read LN Mukherjee and Sir Jadunath Sarkar.He ends on a weak note saying we should have more Dara Shikoh'sWe are are talking about Aurangzeb and not Dara Shikoh!
RE:The Truth about Aurangzeb
by Arvind Nandan on Feb 16, 2007 04:06 PM Permalink
I am surprised you want to discuss the author's nationality to assess the quality of his research. It is non-relevant. Have you read William Dalrymple's 'The Last Mughal' or 'The Untold Story of India's Partition - Shadows of the Great Game' by Narendra Singh Sarila? These are both very well researched accounts of the periods they discuss. Is it important for gaining knowledge to know who researched the subject? Whether to our liking or not, the opinions (and various research) need to be studied carefully before downplaying their importance.
RE:The Truth about Aurangzeb
by shivaji kesarkar on Feb 16, 2007 04:01 PM Permalink
i think for sure that mr. shahanshah is a politician from the congress (I), who like an ostridge likes to hide his face in the sand.
RE:The Truth about Aurangzeb
by Hot Air on Feb 16, 2007 03:41 PM Permalink
Did Aurangzeb mistreat Hindus or not? Please give a simple Yes or No.
Why is Francois' nationality relevant in this context? It isn't. Also, do you mean to say that Jadunath Sarkar claims Aurangzeb to be a tolerant Muslim.
You are running away from some inconvenient truths about out past history, just as the politicians have done so far.
RE:RE:The Truth about Aurangzeb
by rahul sood on Feb 16, 2007 04:05 PM Permalink
his nationality isnt relevant but he is sitting in my country and promoting hatred amongst my people so like hell am going to ask him to shut the hell up, and past history.If we speak about the pandits being driven away, whats the indian army doing slaughtering and raping inocent people in kashmir ,thats not even history ...talk about that thats whats happening right now.
Dara shikoh it seems ...seriously u were talking about Auranzeb what a pathetic way to finish it , if this isnt a direct assult at their religion then what it.
I hate people trying to sound balanced and attacking someone's faith based on one persons actions. And this loser is just one of them .33 years in india he should have learnt by now what sort of stuff causes communal tension here.
Also the author can organize an another exhibition on how on the concepts of sati, hindhus killed the women, tortured the heads and also how on the name of god, upper castes discriminated lower castes..
RE:how hindhus killed one another
by Ashwin Iyer on Feb 16, 2007 03:46 PM Permalink
Dear Karthik,
Do you think such exhibitions dont exist. They do exist and even certain things are taught in school books. Look at history in a more matured manner.
Why do you think Traditional Penalty Lays and Laws of Society and Royalty are extinct today? Not because someone else ruled this country for so many years. It is because this religion evolves and is dynamic enough to change when required. Look at history and accept it. There is nothing wrong.
RE:how hindhus killed one another
by Koushik Rudra on Feb 16, 2007 04:24 PM Permalink
My dear Karthik, as a Hindu I know all these facts and feel ashamed about this. Thats why Raja Rammohan Roy, Pandit Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar and Vivekananda are visionary. The Hindus accpet very well some parts of the dark periods. The thing is that let the majority Muslims also accept the dark periods of Muslim rule in India. Why are you talking un-necessary things?
RE:RE:how hindhus killed one another
by SENGATHIR SELVAN on Feb 16, 2007 04:50 PM Permalink
As long as some ill hearted muslims did not try to glorify dark periods of Muslim rule in India, It is Ok..
What we are yet to see that reformative leader in Muslims as Hindus did have...
Muslims shall make up their mind to encourge those stars to shine...
RE:how hindhus killed one another
by Vinayak Patil on Feb 16, 2007 05:08 PM Permalink
Well Hindus accept that sati system was wrong and follow their stand in modern times. Show me how many muslims at-least accept that they have wrong attitude towards women in their religion and will do everything to modern women.
RE:how hindhus killed one another
by on Feb 16, 2007 05:20 PM Permalink
hi karthik, enjoyed ur post.1,sati came into vogue during the medieval wartimes (read rajput fighting muslim invaders) in rajasthan, when rajput soldiers had to fight till death. no rajput soldier wanted dishonour to his wife and female children after he and his sons have died in the battlefields. and it is obvious that sati was not a practice before the medieval times as none of the epics or any scripture composed before 13th century cite of at least one incidence of sati, leave alone it being a mass social practice. 2, well, i assume umeant "tonsuring" the head, or shaving the hair off the head of a widow, after the death of her man. this came into vogue, where the woman had to sustain her life after the death of her husband for the sake of her children, when she is in no position to commit sati. till now, i dont know any other castes following that ritual apart from the tamil brahmins who practiced that till the early 20th century. but every religion in the world, apart from sikhism, buddhism and jainism, had been oppressive against their own womenfolk. and now, we know what is the condition of womenfolk in countries with a strict islamic law, hindus dont need to feel bad at all. 3, caste DISCRIMINATION had been there in india since four millenia, but upper castes OPPRESSING lower castes was grossly a fragment of imagination of christian missionaries who had come in the 16th century to spread their faith. come on, u tell me, india still has 80% hindus, of whom 20% are dalits, and sice 11th century till 18th, various sultans used threats, fines and torture co convert hindus to muslims. to be continued.
RE:how hindhus killed one another
by Rohith on Feb 16, 2007 03:58 PM Permalink
Dear karthik. Do you know the reason for practising satti in those days.Please have a look at history, there you will find that it was made in order to prevent muslim leaders from raping/ converting women, when their husband died in a battle. Offcourse, it was later misused by men. It's no where linked to hinduism...we had given all the liberty and freedom for women..just by closing your eyes dosen't make the whole world blind...investigate before commenting...people like you having a shallow knowledge about your own religion,will become scape goat to missionaries( christian hypocrats).
RE:RE:how hindhus killed one another
by on Feb 16, 2007 05:07 PM Permalink
help me man, this mod has gone nuts n tryin to delete my post no matter how many times i send it, but totally illogical and fanatic posts are not deleted.
RE:how hindhus killed one another
by VP on Feb 16, 2007 03:55 PM Permalink
The wrong things upper caste hindus did is no justification for what aurangzeb did. this piece dealt with aurangzeb and not the atrocities of upper caste hindus. hindus have never forcibly converted people of other religions. religions of indian origin are generally tolerant and open to interpretation and debate. no one will kill me if i say that maybe Ramayana is a great epic and not factual history. the same cant be said if i dispute anything written in the Quran!!
In times when distortion of history in the name of being secular is the norm, the author has presented the facts as they are. It is really heartening to know that someone has the guts to utter the truth with conviction and more important- solid proof. Hats off to you Mr. Gautier for stating the truth, and not hide under the veil of political correctness.
Great! Mr.Francois Gautier!Cheers to u, to disclose the truth to every one.Great Job! We read all wrong history in our Text books.My request to all Indians is,know the truth & then decide the correct way of life.By skipping the Past and thinking we are very happy,is not correct.Truth is always Truth.Dont hide anything.There is nothing anti-muslim here.He praised DaraShikoh who represents equality. Be Positive.
I dont like History as a subject because there are substantial variations on the same topic of History by different authors. How much the author is correct Almighty knows. But one thing is sure that the author of the said article is the member of hindu fundamentalist organisation. The author should not have arranged exibition on contraversail issue when the present circumstances demand "FORGET PAST AND LOOK TOWARDS FUTURE" for betterment of Country and mankind. We are not french, German etc. We are Indians and have different mentality than West.
RE:Forget the Past n Look towards future
by babu rengaraj on Feb 16, 2007 03:41 PM Permalink
i want to ask you, if someone writes about some hindu ruler who was arrogant , will your reply be the same?????
RE:Forget the Past n Look towards future
by Koushik Rudra on Feb 16, 2007 03:50 PM Permalink
Why are you so reluctant to accept the atrocities of Aurangzeb, just because he was a Muslim? This is called fundamentalism and the writer is not a Hindu fundamentalist. Why the secular Muslims in India like you have not protested against the proposed Sharia rule in Kashmir? Is it not against the secularism in a state of secular India? Its time that people like you change your mentality and come out of the clutches of religion. Religion is supposed to be a faith, which should make us be a more refined human being, and not facsism and wiping out histrory and it is not able the nation. Actually the minority appeasement started by the Congress has become so strong due to political vote bank game, anything said against somebody who is related to Islam is protested and termed as Hindu fundamentalism. What is going on in Kashmir? Why should we term the exhibition on Aurangzeb as controversial just because that demon, the enemy of human happened to be a Muslim and that hurts you. Try to accpet the fact, the history. If you are a true Muslim, have shame on Aurangzeb because he was a Muslim. Dont try to fall in trap of the pseudo secularists like Congressi and the hypocritical Marxsists. Enough of maligning and neglecting the sentiments of the majority Hindus in India. We are rising - we are not intolerant like majority Muslims like you, we have the guts to accept our past and move forward.
RE:Forget the Past n Look towards future
by Hariharan on Feb 16, 2007 04:13 PM Permalink
forget past, then forget Shariat and adopt Modeen, common civil code,forget Babri masjid.
IS HE ready to forget above ??? Don't show hypocracy when a few of millions of muslims are bad..
RE:Forget the Past n Look towards future
by shankar Ramanathan on Feb 16, 2007 03:32 PM Permalink
Pls don't try to mark him a fundamentalist. When any truth is said, that person becomes a hindu fundamentalist !! You may not like history (or for that matter any subject - that's your problem) but nobody has the rights to hide facts. We should know what happened earlier to avoid making the same mistakes. Who are we to hide the truth ?
RE:RE:RE:Forget the Past n Look towards future
by Prem Viswanathan on Feb 16, 2007 03:43 PM Permalink
Strange! When somebody criticises bad aspects of islam, he becomes a hindu fundamentalist. While he criticises the bad aspects of hindu practices, he becomes a secular.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Forget the Past n Look towards future
by Koushik Rudra on Feb 16, 2007 04:28 PM Permalink
The propounder of this postulate was great Jawaharlal Nehru and the legacy is countinued aptly by Congressi, all Samajwadi typos and the Marxists.
RE:The truth about Aurangzeb
by saju nair on Feb 16, 2007 03:42 PM Permalink
Correct, secularism is only for hindus, Muslims and cristians can do anything and get away. Its not too far before a civil war breaks out.
RE:The truth about Aurangzeb
by Anant Roy on Feb 16, 2007 04:43 PM Permalink
Do Not worry ! Gautier's prolific pen has spared none. Only thing to worry is that world is not black & white.. and We ALL have our moments of shame !
When this columnist says we need to look history in the face in a way the French did it he is being mature. However this feeling of reading a mature article gets murky when a reader finds the underlying message or righting the wrong. The Kashmiris today have no link other than that of religion to Aurangazeb and their preference for Shariah should not be linked to Aurangzeb.
The Indian Nation is mature enough to allow Muslims to be governed by Mohammed Law in civil matters. The Muhammaden is also guided occasionally by their clerics who do decide on some civil matters. How does it affect the majority of us who are not so governed as we do not belong to the Muslim faith? Whenever there are cases that breach good governance like the Imrana case the courts go beyond those rules and punish the rapist instead of decreeing that the person raped now has found a new husband at the cost of his existing one.
And correct me if I am wrong too but Dara Sikho along with his brothers Sujah and Murad like Aurangzeb raced to Delhi when Shah Jahan was sick to decide who the new ruler would be. Aurangazeb managed to put his siblings to death (not for interest in Hinduism) and when wonder of wonders when the old man improved in health he was consigned to Agra fort where he lived another 8(? or so) years before he died.
RE:Flogging the dead Horse!
by Koushik Rudra on Feb 16, 2007 04:03 PM Permalink
My dear Mr. Radhakrishna Iyer, why should our secular Government not allow us to follow the Hindu civil rules of Manu, where a man can marry "n" number of time. This will not be affecting other communities.
Killing Aurangzeb's brothers were not related to Hinduism but for throne but we cannot ignore the fact that the religious tolerance started by Akbar, which continued till Shah Jahan was carry forwarded by Dara also. The comparison with Kashmir is very much apt because like Aurangzeb, the Muslim fundamentalist who clensed out Hindus, the same thing was being done with the Kashmiri pandits and now full fledged Ismalisation of a state of democratic and secular India is on process and so called secular people are feeling very happy. can you tell me why subsidy is given on Hadge while a pilgrimage to Amarnath is taxed? Can you tell me why a marxist minister Subhash Chakravorty was show caused by the leadership beause of his worshipping mata Kali in a temple?Ok the marxists do not belive in God. Then why a Muslim leader in CPM is never questioned for going to a mosque? Boss - its plain hypocricy. Minorities are pampered just for vote at the cost of any and every ideology. This is done by all Congress and their fellow minded politicians. why cant every body be equal? No special rules for any body - no special preferntial treatment for anybody? Look at the democracy of European countries. They dont have separate outlooks for their fellow citizens based on religion and caste. Please dont be a pseudo secularist.
RE:Flogging the dead Horse!
by Ashwin Iyer on Feb 16, 2007 03:39 PM Permalink
Dear Shri. Iyer,
I do agree with you that the article leans a little right in the end, but I feel only to an allowable extent.
I do not agree with you on the statement that Muslims should be allowed to be governed under Sharia on civil matters. What is every religion starts demanding such privileges (which goes unheard by GoI)? Why do we need a Hindu marriages Act 1956 and why did we stop using the tradional laws that we were using till then?
Again, Uniform Civil Code is an extremely difficult task to achieve in India. Brit tried it twice, once in 1828 and 1858 (durin the first and second law commissions) and left it. They could only bring a uniform penal law (IPC 1872). POst Independance also we tried our best and left it to god by putting it in the wish list by mentioning it only in the directive principles of state policy (Art 44).
BJP whose poll manifestos always talk about UCC has not even moved an inch towards this. This requires a lot guts, which I dont think today's politicians have.
