RE:Let the History takes
by Sameer K on Feb 19, 2007 09:50 PM Permalink
This is nothing but Communist Terrorist joined with Islamic terrorist both have same objective to destroy this great nation, don't tell us those are hindus thoase are Gaddars.. Astin ka saap.
RE:Let the History takes
by Jayant Pant on Feb 20, 2007 02:10 AM Permalink
Aurangzeb "donated for temple". Who was he to donate our land to our people?
RE:Let the History takes
by Venkateswaran N on Feb 19, 2007 10:15 PM Permalink
OK.Let us assume for a moment that,all those who think of Aurangzeb as a fanatic are Hindutva vadis. What about the execution of the Sikh Guru, Tegh Bahadur by Aurangzeb? What about militant uprising of sikhs under the leadership of the great 10th Guru of Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh, in response to the atrocities of Aurangzeb. What do you say about the zafarnama that the Guru wrote to Aurangazeb. In this letter the Guru details how he and his thugs have broken their oaths sworn on Koran. Do you want us to believe that all these are lies. So, Please stop spreading black lies that Aurangzeb is a good human or a benevolent king.
RE:Let the History takes
by Secular Indian on Feb 20, 2007 04:38 AM Permalink
Most of the article quoted is based on the hypothesis , "if Aurangzeb forced Hindus to convert to Islam then there should be more Muslims in India." It's certainly a valid question to ask. If one looks at Aurangzebs attempts as chronicled by his own court, he was certainly not lacking in zeal. According to his own official court chronicles: "Aurangzeb ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices". Some more nuggets that you may not be familiar with "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed. .. His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed..Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground"
These are not the ravings of a Hindu vadi but from the official court records which are not in dispute. The resistance to attempts at forced conversion are also well recorded, Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom [What the Mughals did to Banda Bahadur and his 4 year son is just too painful to recount here]. If there are more Hindus in India today it is not for lack of trying on Aurangzebs part but inspite of it, perhaps their under rated stoical demeanour in the face of such cruelty is taken for granted and not recognized for what it is, that the Hindus/Sikhs preferred to die rather than convert to Islam.
a. Muslim populations are concentrated in urban areas, an implication that they Muslim rulers more or less succeeded in places where they had total control. In the country side their hold was tenuous at best and so they weren't as successful.
b. The Muslim in undivided India was not minuscule, in undivided Punjab which was the larges province prior to partition Muslims were 65% and the Hindu/Sikh population was only 35%. This was an area of active forced conversions and this where most of the recorded resistance to Mughal forced conversions come from.