I agree with the columnist that we need to know the history not only about Aurangzeb but the entire history. Was Aurangzeb an exception? He was a distoator but so was Ashoka and only later he took to Buddhism. Were the Aryans who first came to India not dictators and exhortionist. Of course they were and they over period instituionalised the worst and most ingrained racial system of castes. Was Aurangzeb any different to any of these people? I dont think so. Tommorow's history would be written and George Bush may figure as dictator. So in history time and gain there have been tyrrants. But this fact should not prevent us from discussing the past because that is the only way to lay foundations for the future. But the biggest fear which we all harbour is intolerance towards other's faith and believing that just one religion is the best and not others and trying to impose this on others. Wiping off one country from the face of earth is jsut one such example. Look at the intolerance of Mr. Baig or Mr. Mirza in the following columns, he even doesnt want to read all this and wants Rediff to stop such non-sense and echoses the sensoring of information and knowledge. Debate is the surest way to establish democracy unless one wants to slip into Iran like dictatorship.
RE:Aurangzeb-What is history?
by Ashwin Iyer on Feb 16, 2007 04:48 PM Permalink
Dear Shri Chowdhury,
Without prejudice to your opinion, I have a few observations in your post.
1) Aryans "coming" to India, either as invaders, dictators, exhortionist is wrong history spread around by Max Muellar and likes. This was because of two things. One, ignorance and two consipiracy. Things have started to unfold now and a clearer history is visible with appropriate evidences.
2) Ashoka was not a dictator or a tyrant and as far as my knowledge goes no written or folk history mentions this. Ashoka was a a Megalomaniac who took on wars to expand his kingdom and killed scores of people. The blodiest of all those wars was Kalinga war, the consequence of which changed his mind to Budhism.
Infact, Indian history at many instance says that you do not need to invade ro wage war to expand your kingdom. Mauryan dynasty was the biggest in size during the reign of Samudragupta Maurya (Ashoka's Father) who commanded entire South and South East Asia. but no major wars are reported in period. Infact, some scriptures in the SE Asia talk about his ability of negotiations and striking alliances through which we assume annexed so many kingdoms.
RE:Aurangzeb-What is history?
by BALSWAROOP AWASTHI on Feb 16, 2007 04:58 PM Permalink
By the way Mr. Ayan CPM Chowdhury, Ashoka was trying to unite a country divided into hundreds of fiefdoms. Even then, at least regretted and tried to compensate for his deeds. Also, Aryan invasion theory has been proved a false marxist historian claim worldwide, but being CPM Chowdhury you would not understand that.
By the way, just to give a small insight further on this comparison, Aurangzeb was not trying to integrate any country, he was forcing people to convert to a different faith which he thought was the only right one.
The intolerance of ignorants can still be cured, the real problem is using false data to support your claim of being a nutralist.
RE:Aurangzeb-What is history?
by Cyber hinwa on Feb 16, 2007 04:43 PM Permalink
THERE WAS NO ARYAN INVASION , YOU SEEM TO BE LIVING IN A COMMUNIST / CONGRESS MADE FOOLS PARADISE . SEEK AND YOU SHALL BE REWARED.
GO TO http://www.bharatvani.org .
We have had innumerable tragic stories of barbarism, brutality, and slaughter of the Hindu, during the last 1200 years, at the hands of Moslems. Islam has a military solution for the elimination of Non-Moslem Kafirs ( Infidels ). Islam is a shooting-gallery for Non-Moslem Kafirs,
Do not worry matters in this are taken from MUSLIM HISTORIANS so you rest asssured the matter is truth .
