i think the writer is a bit confused.there is a lack of clarity of thoughts.he is confused between whether to malign auranzeb or to provide the muslims with his own way of living.it beats me that how could so many disparate group of historians act in collusion to save the face of a not so loved and that includes our very own chacha nehru.we have been brougt up reading history that a french guy comes and refutes.i am really pained if this is the state of our system as i atleast take pride in being an indian,and my very own system.
RE:reply
by ed ben on Feb 17, 2007 07:42 PM Permalink
aurangazeb was the only emperor who had complete india under him.we could have resisted the british under him.still for alll what is done cannot be undone.
RE:reply
by Gaurav Prateek on Feb 17, 2007 08:25 PM Permalink
Dear Mariam, the writer is trying to make a point about the existence of a violent form of a religion. The Prophet was a Revolutionary of his time, and the basic message, of Equality, in Islam will always be relevant. However, in the backdrop of what happened to Dara Shikoh, an Indian that we should be proud of, this Frenchman you criticise is trying to draw parellels with the intolerance to free thought that existed then, and still exists among the conservative quarters of that Great Religion. Therefore Mr. Gautier's message is pretty straightforward.
