The noted Indian scholar and historian, Dr Bishambhar Nath Pande, ranked among the very few Indians and fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be little careful when dealing with the Muslim rule in India that lasted for almost 1000 years.
Dr Pande passed away on 1 June 1998 and Impact International of London (July 1998) wrote the following obituary [at the end of the article], which we think sheds some light into some of the myths on Indian history, such as on Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, created by the British with the clear objective of divide and rule:
The Muslim rule in India lasted for almost 1000 years. How come then, asked the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, that Hindus 'had not left any account which could enable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them'? Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight-volume History of India from its own historians (1867).
RE:THE GREAT EMPEROR - SHAHENSHAH AURANGZEB
by manivasan nil on Mar 21, 2007 04:53 PM Permalink
There are two reasons why no such detailed accounts were available in hindu writings.First,any writing is possible only if there is peace and stability in the country.Obviously, with the muslim domination on India(except the Vijayanagara period in south),you cannot expect the Hindus to sit and write their sufferings in details.
Secondly,most of the writings were by the high caste people who were patronised by the kings and it was a mutually beneficial(parasitic)relationship.Moreover,for vast sections of common men, it was immaterial whether the ruler is a Hindu or Muslim. His conditions remained same.
RE:RE:THE GREAT EMPEROR - SHAHENSHAH AURANGZEB
by wada pav on Mar 21, 2007 06:15 PM Permalink
These records have been left behind by muslim historians in books like 'badshahnama' and 'farmans' , and not by hindu historians.
besides not entire country was ruled by aurangzeb. parts of the country like maharashtra were ruled by Shivaji, in such parts there was stability and people could write history.
