Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:36 pm

It seems unbelievable but it is reportedly a historical fact that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb built a temple 323 years ago at Chitrakoot, a region now divided between UP and MP.

[Aurangzeb] ordered his men to build a grand temple then and there. He also conferred 330 bighas of precious and fertile land with seven villages and one rupee daily from the state treasury for the maintenance of the temple. These villages are Hamutha, Chitrakoot, Rodra, Sarya, Madri, Jarva and Dohariya in Allahabad district, UP.

What we have always known and Aurangzeb must have known too, is that Chitrakoot, today in shambles and civic disarray, is sacred ground, the abode of Lord Ram, Sitaji and Lakshman for nearly eleven and a half years of their exile.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NM21/Aurangzeb-at-Chitrakoot/Article1-199287.aspx

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:41 pm

It is said that Aurangzeb was communal. This is not so. He built Hindu temples, and he appointed Rajput chieftains.

As his predecessors had done, Aurangzeb appointed the Rajput chieftains to many of the highest offices of state where they worked side by side with Muslims, writes Hambly.

http://www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/aurangzib.html

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:42 pm

Another indication of Aurangzeb the Great's generous side:

Aurangzeb was, by temperament, an ascetic who avoided all forms of luxury and ostentation; he even refused to wear silk against his body.

Same link as above.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:43 pm

Aurangzeb had a love for books, as this article indicates.

Aurangzeb limited his reading to works of theology and poetry of a devotional or didactic character, writes Hambly.

http://www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/aurangzib.html

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:50 pm

Of all the men who sat upon the throne in Delhi no name evokes such an image of somber grandeur as that of Aurangzeb.

http://www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/aurangzib.html

It is worth noting that Aurangzeb's name evokes a higher-resolution, higher-color-density, sharper-focus, better-exposed image of somber grandeur than that of Akbar. If Aurangzeb was communal, this would not have been the case with his image.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:54 pm

One of the reasons Aurangzeb gets an undeserved bad reputation for religious persecution, pettiness, cruelty and ambition is that he was a powerful ruler. In the course of ruling powerfully, he may have gotten a few people roughed up. The descendants of those roughed-up people from UP and similar places are today hating on this great ruler and giving him a bad name. They should drop their hatred for Aurangzeb and join me in singing his praises. There is still time, and there are enough things to praise in Aurangzeb's distinguished career. Together we can praise him!

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:09 pm

People who hate Aurangzeb have repeatedly called him communal. They hate him because he had gotten their ancestors roughed up. But in reality, Aurangzeb was a secular king.

Did you know that the tenth guru of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh, praised Aurangzeb? Here is a poem in Persian from the Guru's Zafarnama:

ਖ਼੝ਸ਼ਸ ਸ਼ਾਹਿ ਸ਼ਾਹਾਨ ਔਰੰਗਜ਼ੇਬ ॥ ਕਿ ਚਾਲਾਕ ਦਸਤ੝ ਅਸਤ੝ ਚਾਬ੝ਕ ਰਕੇਬ ॥੮੯॥
KHUSH-ASH SHAH-E SHAHAAN AURANGZEB
KE CHALAAK DAST AST CHABAK RAKEB (89)
Aurangzeb, the king of kings, has a cheerful disposition. He is a good swordsman and an agile horseman.

ਚਿ ਹ੝ਸਨ੝ਲ ਜਮਾਲਸਤ੝ ਰੌਸ਼ਨ ਜ਼ਮੀਰ ॥ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦ ਮ੝ਲਕ ਅਸਤ੝ ਸਾਹਿਬਿ ਅਮੀਰ ॥੯੦॥
KE HUSN AL-JAMAAL AST-O ROSHAN ZAMEER
KHUDAVAND-E MULK AST-O SAHIB AMEER (90)
Aurangzeb is beauty personified. He is a quick thinker and he is the lord of his kingdom;

ਕਿ ਤਰਤੀਬ ਦਾਨਿਸ਼ ਬ ਤਦਬੀਰ ਤੇਗ਼ ॥ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦਿ ਦੇਗੋ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦ ਤੇਗ਼ ॥੯੧॥
B- TARTEEB DAANISH B-TADBEER TEG
KHUDAVAND DEG-O KHUDAVAND TEG (91)
Aurangzeb is wise and knowledgeable and is a skillful wielder of the sword. He is the provider of all the necessities of the people and lords over the world with his military might.

ਕਿ ਰੌਸ਼ਨ ਜ਼ਮੀਰ ਅਸਤ੝ ਹ੝ਸਨ੝ਲ ਜਮਾਲ ॥ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਿੰਦਹੇ ਮ੝ਲਕ੝ ਮਾਲ ॥੯੨॥
KE ROHAN ZAMEER AST-O HUSN AL-JAMAAL
KHUDAVAND BAKHSHINDEH-E MULK-O MAAL (92)
He is handsome and possesses a brilliant mind. He is bountiful in distributing the riches of his kingdom.

ਕਿ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕਬੀਰ ਅਸਤ੝ ਦਰ ਜੰਗ ਕੋਹ ॥ ਮਲਾਯਕ ਸਿਫ਼ਤ ਚੂੰ ਸ੝ਰੱਯਾ ਸ਼ਿਕੋਹ ॥੯੩॥
KE BAKSHASH KABIR AST DAR JANG KOH
MALAAYEK SIFT CHU SUR-RYAA SHAKOH (93)
His magnificence is great. In war he is like a mountain. He has the attributes of angels and his splendor matches the Pleiades (“seven sisters” in the constellation Taurus).

ਸ਼ਹਿਨਸ਼ਾਹ ਔਰੰਗਜ਼ੇਬ ਆਲਮੀਂ ॥ ਕਿ ਦਾਰਾਇ ਦੌਰ ਅਸਤ੝ ਦੂਰ ਅਸਤ ਦੀਂ ॥੯੪॥
SHEHAN-SHAHE AURANG ZEB AALAMIN
KE DARA-E DAUR AST-O DOOR AST DEEN (94)
Aurangzeb is the king of kings. He is the lord of the world and has all the riches of this age. But he is far from his religion.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Zafarnama_(Beginning)#Verses_89_to_94

In other words, Guru Gobind Singh talks about the generous side of Aurangzeb, and concludes that he is far from his religion, and therefore thoroughly secular.

by Guest Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:13 pm

panini press wrote:People who hate Aurangzeb have repeatedly called him communal. They hate him because he had gotten their ancestors roughed up. But in reality, Aurangzeb was a secular king.

Did you know that the tenth guru of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh, praised Aurangzeb? Here is a poem in Persian from the Guru's Zafarnama:

ਖ਼੝ਸ਼ਸ ਸ਼ਾਹਿ ਸ਼ਾਹਾਨ ਔਰੰਗਜ਼ੇਬ ॥ ਕਿ ਚਾਲਾਕ ਦਸਤ੝ ਅਸਤ੝ ਚਾਬ੝ਕ ਰਕੇਬ ॥੮੯॥
KHUSH-ASH SHAH-E SHAHAAN AURANGZEB
KE CHALAAK DAST AST CHABAK RAKEB (89)
Aurangzeb, the king of kings, has a cheerful disposition. He is a good swordsman and an agile horseman.

ਚਿ ਹ੝ਸਨ੝ਲ ਜਮਾਲਸਤ੝ ਰੌਸ਼ਨ ਜ਼ਮੀਰ ॥ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦ ਮ੝ਲਕ ਅਸਤ੝ ਸਾਹਿਬਿ ਅਮੀਰ ॥੯੦॥
KE HUSN AL-JAMAAL AST-O ROSHAN ZAMEER
KHUDAVAND-E MULK AST-O SAHIB AMEER (90)
Aurangzeb is beauty personified. He is a quick thinker and he is the lord of his kingdom;

ਕਿ ਤਰਤੀਬ ਦਾਨਿਸ਼ ਬ ਤਦਬੀਰ ਤੇਗ਼ ॥ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦਿ ਦੇਗੋ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦ ਤੇਗ਼ ॥੯੧॥
B- TARTEEB DAANISH B-TADBEER TEG
KHUDAVAND DEG-O KHUDAVAND TEG (91)
Aurangzeb is wise and knowledgeable and is a skillful wielder of the sword. He is the provider of all the necessities of the people and lords over the world with his military might.

ਕਿ ਰੌਸ਼ਨ ਜ਼ਮੀਰ ਅਸਤ੝ ਹ੝ਸਨ੝ਲ ਜਮਾਲ ॥ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਿੰਦਹੇ ਮ੝ਲਕ੝ ਮਾਲ ॥੯੨॥
KE ROHAN ZAMEER AST-O HUSN AL-JAMAAL
KHUDAVAND BAKHSHINDEH-E MULK-O MAAL (92)
He is handsome and possesses a brilliant mind. He is bountiful in distributing the riches of his kingdom.

ਕਿ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕਬੀਰ ਅਸਤ੝ ਦਰ ਜੰਗ ਕੋਹ ॥ ਮਲਾਯਕ ਸਿਫ਼ਤ ਚੂੰ ਸ੝ਰੱਯਾ ਸ਼ਿਕੋਹ ॥੯੩॥
KE BAKSHASH KABIR AST DAR JANG KOH
MALAAYEK SIFT CHU SUR-RYAA SHAKOH (93)
His magnificence is great. In war he is like a mountain. He has the attributes of angels and his splendor matches the Pleiades (“seven sisters” in the constellation Taurus).

ਸ਼ਹਿਨਸ਼ਾਹ ਔਰੰਗਜ਼ੇਬ ਆਲਮੀਂ ॥ ਕਿ ਦਾਰਾਇ ਦੌਰ ਅਸਤ੝ ਦੂਰ ਅਸਤ ਦੀਂ ॥੯੪॥
SHEHAN-SHAHE AURANG ZEB AALAMIN
KE DARA-E DAUR AST-O DOOR AST DEEN (94)
Aurangzeb is the king of kings. He is the lord of the world and has all the riches of this age. But he is far from his religion.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Zafarnama_(Beginning)#Verses_89_to_94

In other words, Guru Gobind Singh talks about the generous side of Aurangzeb, and concludes that he is far from his religion, and therefore thoroughly secular.

i question the authenticity of this poem. I do not think Guru Gobind Singh wrote in this fashion about Aurangzeb. moreover the trash you are now posting is not from your favorite 'Hindu' newspaper. The Nizam's generosity, in contrast, has been highlighted in several articles of your favorite Indian newspaper--'The Hindu'. Also, you are shying away from answering why Nizam was made Governor of the State of Hyderabad after Indian independence.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:16 pm

No other king in Indian history was praised like this by the leader of another religious group. Akbar did OK, but most of his praise was written by lowly employees and representatives from foreign countries. Same with Ashoka, the people who wrote well about him were coreligionists he supported financially. Here we have an example of a great ruler whose praises were sung by the head of a different religion. If Aurangzeb was communal, Guru Gobind Singh would not have written this.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:i question the authenticity of this poem. I do not think Guru Gobind Singh wrote in this fashion about Aurangzeb.

This is because you have a hatred for Aurangzeb. This may be because some of your ancestors were roughed up by him when he lost his head towards the latter half of his rule and did some minor bad things that are best glossed over.

Rashmun wrote:He moreover the trash you are now posting is not from your favorite 'Hindu' newspaper.

I posted this from the SikhiWiki:

SikhiWIKI is an encyclopedia of the Sikh Way of Life written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving SikhiWIKI, by constantly making changes, all of which are recorded on the page history and the Recent Changes page. Nonsense and vandalism are usually removed quickly.

These verses are completely authentic and attributed by Sikh tradition to Guru Gobind Singh. Here are other sources that contain the same verses with very similar translations.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf, page 34
http://www.unp.me/f15/zafarnama-guru-gobind-singh-ji-da-likhiya-khat-auranzeb-nu-17015/

Here is a higher-quality English translation of the verses: http://www.info-sikh.com/EEZPage1.html

O Aurangzeb, king of kings, fortunate are you,
An expert swordsman and a horseman too: (89)

Handsome is your person and your intellect high,
Master of the lands, ruler and emperor. (90)

A skilled wielder of the sword and clever in administration,
A master-warrior and a man of charitable disposition. (91)

You grant riches and lands in charity,
O one of handsome body and brilliant mind. (92)

Great is your munificence, in war you are like a mountain,
Of angelic disposition, your splendor is like that of Pleiades. (93)

You are the king of kings, ornament of the throne of the world:
Master of the world, but far from religion! (94)

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:35 pm

did aurangazeb make many many mistakes? did he nashe mein rape like the nizam was occasionally known to do?

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:39 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:did aurangazeb make many many mistakes? did he nashe mein rape like the nizam was occasionally known to do?

Yes, Aurangzeb did lose his head and make some minor mistakes in his latter years. My recommendation for him would have been to keep his head. But we can't let the good stuff about him be forgotten just because he nashe-mein-rape-kar-diya-ed a few times. None of your Tamil kings were extolled by any Sikh guru, were they?

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:45 pm

nope no tamil kings were extolled by sikh gurus. i think the sikh gurus should also have taken note of the nizam.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:52 pm

Here is another source which has the English translation of Guru Gobind Singh's praise of Aurangzeb the Great:

http://www.sikhs.org/transl5.htm

Sikhs.org, the source, is the world's first Sikh website.

The specific mandate of this web site is to be a reference learning resource about Sikhism for Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike. Here you will find information about the belief system, development, history and practices of the Sikh religion. Also included is a complete English transaltion of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh Scripture. Sikhs.org was the world's first website to make the Guru Granth Sahib available on the Internet.

Every effort has been made to present information about Sikhism while respectfully remaining within the parameters of The Sikh Rehat Maryada which is The Official Sikh Code of Conduct and Conventions.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:01 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i question the authenticity of this poem. I do not think Guru Gobind Singh wrote in this fashion about Aurangzeb.
This is because you have a hatred for Aurangzeb. This may be because some of your ancestors were roughed up by him when he lost his head towards the latter half of his rule and did some minor bad things that are best glossed over.

Rashmun wrote:He moreover the trash you are now posting is not from your favorite 'Hindu' newspaper.
I posted this from the SikhiWiki:

SikhiWIKI is an encyclopedia of the Sikh Way of Life written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving SikhiWIKI, by constantly making changes, all of which are recorded on the page history and the Recent Changes page. Nonsense and vandalism are usually removed quickly.

These verses are completely authentic and attributed by Sikh tradition to Guru Gobind Singh. Here are other sources that contain the same verses with very similar translations.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf, page 34
http://www.unp.me/f15/zafarnama-guru-gobind-singh-ji-da-likhiya-khat-auranzeb-nu-17015/

Here is a higher-quality English translation of the verses: http://www.info-sikh.com/EEZPage1.html

O Aurangzeb, king of kings, fortunate are you,
An expert swordsman and a horseman too: (89)

Handsome is your person and your intellect high,
Master of the lands, ruler and emperor. (90)

A skilled wielder of the sword and clever in administration,
A master-warrior and a man of charitable disposition. (91)

You grant riches and lands in charity,
O one of handsome body and brilliant mind. (92)

Great is your munificence, in war you are like a mountain,
Of angelic disposition, your splendor is like that of Pleiades. (93)

You are the king of kings, ornament of the throne of the world:
Master of the world, but far from religion! (94)

.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:09 pm

We have now established that Aurangzeb was the most secular of India's great rulers. No other ruler was extolled in such terms by a leader of another faith as Aurangzeb was by Guru Gobind Singh. Now, let us turn to another vicious canard that the descendants of the people he roughed up a little have sought to perpetuate: the idea that Aurangzeb was against music and the arts.

The picture of Aurangzeb built up in the story of the protest song is predicated on the widespread European view of him as a caricature villain, and the wishful thinking inspired by European imperial ambitions.

However, it also reﬂects Manucci’s personal antagonism towards Aurangzeb, and his difﬁculty in reconciling his vision of an intolerant despot with widespread evidence of musical activity in the ﬁrst ten regnal years. All Manucci’s musical stories of this period are designed to prove Aurangzeb’s puritanical tendencies; for example, his anecdote about a
sarangi smuggling ring supplying Shah Jahan’s prison behind Aurangzeb’s supposedly censorious back.

Manucci’s ‘proof’ of long-standing antagonism towards music in this case is demonstrably false. Francois Bernier, a respected member of the court until 1668, noted that Shah Jahan continued to maintain all his ‘singing and dancing women’ by Aurangzeb’s express permission, in all likelihood until his death in 1666.

In other words, the truthfulness of Manucci’s anecdotes is entirely secondary to the point he is trying to make: despite the evidence, Manucci cannot escape his rhetorical need to portray Aurangzeb as an ancient enemy of Indian culture. On the contrary, prior to the burial incident, there is little evidence of imperial hostility towards music outside the pages of Manucci’s journal.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81299631/Did-Aurangzeb-Ban-Music

To summarize: Aurangzeb's portrayal as a bad guy is due to European imperialism and it has no basis in fact. Descendants of the people who got roughed up a little, like Rashmun, spread these lies about Aurangzeb to make him seem like a bad guy, when he is in fact a generous, secular, artistic, book-loving, good guy.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:11 pm

panini press wrote:We have now established that Aurangzeb was the most secular of India's great rulers. No other ruler was extolled in such terms by a leader of another faith as Aurangzeb was by Guru Gobind Singh.

It is to be noted that Aurangzeb is more secular than Akbar and Nizam, the other two great exemplars of secularism. Compared to Aurangzeb, those two guys are small fry when it comes to secularism.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:26 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:We have now established that Aurangzeb was the most secular of India's great rulers. No other ruler was extolled in such terms by a leader of another faith as Aurangzeb was by Guru Gobind Singh.
It is to be noted that Aurangzeb is more secular than Akbar and Nizam, the other two great exemplars of secularism. Compared to Aurangzeb, those two guys are small fry when it comes to secularism.

As ~~Dr Reddy~~ Rashmun rightly says, ~~the Andhra Govt~~ Guru Gobind Singh would not have been honoring ~~the Nizam~~ Aurangzeb if ~~the Nizam~~ Aurangzeb would have been a tyrannical figure as some portray him to be.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:56 pm

i don't know enough about nizulu's history, but did he also lock up daddy garu like the great moghal emperor?

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:23 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i don't know enough about nizulu's history, but did he also lock up daddy garu like the great moghal emperor?

It is true that Aurangzeb the Great locked up his father. This is because his father did not treat him nicely. Despite Aurangzeb's proven experience, his father wanted to give the job to an upstart brother of his. If Aurangzeb had not moved to neutralize his brothers and lock up his brother, they would have neutralized him. By doing all this, Aurangzeb truly spared the entire country from the inefficient and corrupt administration of his father, and ushered in a glorious period of secular rule as attested by Guru Gobind Singh. In summary, Aurangzeb should be applauded for locking up his father. Also, all this happened before Aurangzeb lost his head in later years, so this helps us understand that it must have a good act. If this was a bad act, he would not have done it before he lost his head.

I don't know the Nizam's position on the matter of locking up one's father. This needs to be investigated in more detail in the separate thread about the Nizam, his generous side, and his love for books.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:52 pm

Copy-paste time again.

Depending on one’s religious rearing, one will favour one view over the other. For example, most Hindus castigate Aurangzeb as a religious bigot who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them unjustly, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them, did not appoint them in high administrative positions, who interfered in their religious matters. On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years.

Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti- Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal-minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decisions to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:53 pm

Also, Muslims would not have considered Aurangzeb a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted emperor if he would not have been a good guy.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:55 pm

During Aurangzeb’s long reign of 50 years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb’s administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus in high positions of authority, especially, in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

---

All this shows that Aurangzeb was clearly more secular than the Nizam.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Now, let us compare Akbar and Aurangzeb on secularism.

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favoured. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had 14 Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court (Ref: Mughal Government). But this fact is somewhat less known. It does not require much intelligence to understand the difference between 14 and 148.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:04 pm

It is true that Aurangzeb unfortunately imposed jaziya on his subjects. This was because he lost his head in later years. We should not blame Aurangzeb for this, we should blame his head which became lost to Aurangzeb. We know that other good rulers like the Nizam also lost their heads sometimes, but that doesn't take away from the good deeds they did earlier. Same deal here.

by Idéfix Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:07 pm

panini press wrote:People who hate Aurangzeb have repeatedly called him communal. They hate him because he had gotten their ancestors roughed up. But in reality, Aurangzeb was a secular king.

Did you know that the tenth guru of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh, praised Aurangzeb? Here is a poem in Persian from the Guru's Zafarnama:

ਖ਼੝ਸ਼ਸ ਸ਼ਾਹਿ ਸ਼ਾਹਾਨ ਔਰੰਗਜ਼ੇਬ ॥ ਕਿ ਚਾਲਾਕ ਦਸਤ੝ ਅਸਤ੝ ਚਾਬ੝ਕ ਰਕੇਬ ॥੮੯॥
KHUSH-ASH SHAH-E SHAHAAN AURANGZEB
KE CHALAAK DAST AST CHABAK RAKEB (89)
Aurangzeb, the king of kings, has a cheerful disposition. He is a good swordsman and an agile horseman.

ਚਿ ਹ੝ਸਨ੝ਲ ਜਮਾਲਸਤ੝ ਰੌਸ਼ਨ ਜ਼ਮੀਰ ॥ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦ ਮ੝ਲਕ ਅਸਤ੝ ਸਾਹਿਬਿ ਅਮੀਰ ॥੯੦॥
KE HUSN AL-JAMAAL AST-O ROSHAN ZAMEER
KHUDAVAND-E MULK AST-O SAHIB AMEER (90)
Aurangzeb is beauty personified. He is a quick thinker and he is the lord of his kingdom;

ਕਿ ਤਰਤੀਬ ਦਾਨਿਸ਼ ਬ ਤਦਬੀਰ ਤੇਗ਼ ॥ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦਿ ਦੇਗੋ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦ ਤੇਗ਼ ॥੯੧॥
B- TARTEEB DAANISH B-TADBEER TEG
KHUDAVAND DEG-O KHUDAVAND TEG (91)
Aurangzeb is wise and knowledgeable and is a skillful wielder of the sword. He is the provider of all the necessities of the people and lords over the world with his military might.

ਕਿ ਰੌਸ਼ਨ ਜ਼ਮੀਰ ਅਸਤ੝ ਹ੝ਸਨ੝ਲ ਜਮਾਲ ॥ ਖ਼੝ਦਾਵੰਦ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਿੰਦਹੇ ਮ੝ਲਕ੝ ਮਾਲ ॥੯੨॥
KE ROHAN ZAMEER AST-O HUSN AL-JAMAAL
KHUDAVAND BAKHSHINDEH-E MULK-O MAAL (92)
He is handsome and possesses a brilliant mind. He is bountiful in distributing the riches of his kingdom.

ਕਿ ਬਖ਼ਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕਬੀਰ ਅਸਤ੝ ਦਰ ਜੰਗ ਕੋਹ ॥ ਮਲਾਯਕ ਸਿਫ਼ਤ ਚੂੰ ਸ੝ਰੱਯਾ ਸ਼ਿਕੋਹ ॥੯੩॥
KE BAKSHASH KABIR AST DAR JANG KOH
MALAAYEK SIFT CHU SUR-RYAA SHAKOH (93)
His magnificence is great. In war he is like a mountain. He has the attributes of angels and his splendor matches the Pleiades (“seven sisters” in the constellation Taurus).

ਸ਼ਹਿਨਸ਼ਾਹ ਔਰੰਗਜ਼ੇਬ ਆਲਮੀਂ ॥ ਕਿ ਦਾਰਾਇ ਦੌਰ ਅਸਤ੝ ਦੂਰ ਅਸਤ ਦੀਂ ॥੯੪॥
SHEHAN-SHAHE AURANG ZEB AALAMIN
KE DARA-E DAUR AST-O DOOR AST DEEN (94)
Aurangzeb is the king of kings. He is the lord of the world and has all the riches of this age. But he is far from his religion.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Zafarnama_(Beginning)#Verses_89_to_94

In other words, Guru Gobind Singh talks about the generous side of Aurangzeb, and concludes that he is far from his religion, and therefore thoroughly secular.

.

by ashdoc Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:52 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:did aurangazeb make many many mistakes? did he nashe mein rape like the nizam was occasionally known to do?

after aurangzeb murdered his elder brother dara shikoh ( along with other brothers ) he wanted to rape and forcibly make his concubine dara's favourite and most beautiful wife . but the loyal lady took a knife and destroyed her own charms by slashing her face apart with the knife .

how unfortunate for aurangzeb..... Evil or Very Mad

by Guest Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:55 pm

ashdoc wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:did aurangazeb make many many mistakes? did he nashe mein rape like the nizam was occasionally known to do?
after aurangzeb murdered his elder brother dara shikoh ( along with other brothers ) he wanted to rape and forcibly make his concubine dara's favourite and most beautiful wife . but the loyal lady took a knife and destroyed her own charms by slashing her face apart with the knife .

how unfortunate for aurangzeb.....

in fact Dara Shikoh's favorite wife had already died by the time Dara was captured. please get your facts right.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:02 am

Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:did aurangazeb make many many mistakes? did he nashe mein rape like the nizam was occasionally known to do?
after aurangzeb murdered his elder brother dara shikoh ( along with other brothers ) he wanted to rape and forcibly make his concubine dara's favourite and most beautiful wife . but the loyal lady took a knife and destroyed her own charms by slashing her face apart with the knife .

how unfortunate for aurangzeb.....

in fact Dara Shikoh's favorite wife had already died by the time Dara was captured. please get your facts right.

Thank you for countering that baseless slander of Aurangzeb the Great.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:04 am

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:did aurangazeb make many many mistakes? did he nashe mein rape like the nizam was occasionally known to do?
after aurangzeb murdered his elder brother dara shikoh ( along with other brothers ) he wanted to rape and forcibly make his concubine dara's favourite and most beautiful wife . but the loyal lady took a knife and destroyed her own charms by slashing her face apart with the knife .

how unfortunate for aurangzeb.....

in fact Dara Shikoh's favorite wife had already died by the time Dara was captured. please get your facts right.
Thank you for countering that baseless slander of Aurangzeb the Great.

i have already stated that Aurangzeb was communal and i gave the evidence: he reimposed jaziya. but that does not mean that we should keep imputing to Aurangzeb crimes he did not commit. Your mollycoddling of an obvious hindutva fanatic just to spite me is noted with amusement.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:12 am

Rashmun wrote:i have already stated that Aurangzeb was communal and i gave the evidence: he reimposed jaziya.

You are wrong. Aurangzeb cannot possibly be communal, just like the Nizam was not communal. Consider this: Guru Gobind Singh praised Aurangzeb. If Aurangzeb would have been communal, Guru Gobind Singh would not have praised him. No Sikh leaders wrote poems in praise of the great munificence of the Nizams. Also, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu as the commander-in-chief of his military. The Nizam did not do this. Aurangzeb's policy was set by Hindus. The Nizam's policy was not. Aurangzeb appointed Hindus to lots of prominent positions -- more than the Nizam and Akbar. You claimed earlier that the Nizam is not communal because some Hindu landlords sided with the Nizam's Razakars. By that measure, Aurangzeb is not at all communal. Please do not contradict yourself now just because Aurangzeb lost his head in later years and got some of your ancestors roughed up.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:13 am

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i have already stated that Aurangzeb was communal and i gave the evidence: he reimposed jaziya.
You are wrong. Aurangzeb cannot possibly be communal, just like the Nizam was not communal. Consider this: Guru Gobind Singh praised Aurangzeb. If Aurangzeb would have been communal, Guru Gobind Singh would not have praised him. No Sikh leaders wrote poems in praise of the great munificence of the Nizams. Also, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu as the commander-in-chief of his military. The Nizam did not do this. Aurangzeb's policy was set by Hindus. The Nizam's policy was not. Aurangzeb appointed Hindus to lots of prominent positions -- more than the Nizam and Akbar. You claimed earlier that the Nizam is not communal because some Hindu landlords sided with the Nizam's Razakars. By that measure, Aurangzeb is not at all communal. Please do not contradict yourself now just because Aurangzeb lost his head in later years and got some of your ancestors roughed up.

Aurangzeb was communal because he reimposed jaziya (special tax on non-muslims). Nizam did not impose jaziya on non-muslims.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:17 am

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i have already stated that Aurangzeb was communal and i gave the evidence: he reimposed jaziya.
You are wrong. Aurangzeb cannot possibly be communal, just like the Nizam was not communal. Consider this: Guru Gobind Singh praised Aurangzeb. If Aurangzeb would have been communal, Guru Gobind Singh would not have praised him. No Sikh leaders wrote poems in praise of the great munificence of the Nizams. Also, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu as the commander-in-chief of his military. The Nizam did not do this. Aurangzeb's policy was set by Hindus. The Nizam's policy was not. Aurangzeb appointed Hindus to lots of prominent positions -- more than the Nizam and Akbar. You claimed earlier that the Nizam is not communal because some Hindu landlords sided with the Nizam's Razakars. By that measure, Aurangzeb is not at all communal. Please do not contradict yourself now just because Aurangzeb lost his head in later years and got some of your ancestors roughed up.

.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:17 am

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i have already stated that Aurangzeb was communal and i gave the evidence: he reimposed jaziya.
You are wrong. Aurangzeb cannot possibly be communal, just like the Nizam was not communal. Consider this: Guru Gobind Singh praised Aurangzeb. If Aurangzeb would have been communal, Guru Gobind Singh would not have praised him. No Sikh leaders wrote poems in praise of the great munificence of the Nizams. Also, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu as the commander-in-chief of his military. The Nizam did not do this. Aurangzeb's policy was set by Hindus. The Nizam's policy was not. Aurangzeb appointed Hindus to lots of prominent positions -- more than the Nizam and Akbar. You claimed earlier that the Nizam is not communal because some Hindu landlords sided with the Nizam's Razakars. By that measure, Aurangzeb is not at all communal. Please do not contradict yourself now just because Aurangzeb lost his head in later years and got some of your ancestors roughed up.

Aurangzeb was communal because he reimposed jaziya (special tax on non-muslims). Nizam did not impose jaziya on non-muslims.

.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:18 am

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb was communal because he reimposed jaziya (special tax on non-muslims). Nizam did not impose jaziya on non-muslims.

It is true that Aurangzeb unfortunately imposed jaziya on his subjects. This was because he lost his head in later years. We should not blame Aurangzeb for this, we should blame his head which became lost to Aurangzeb. We know that other good rulers like the Nizam also lost their heads sometimes, but that doesn't take away from the good deeds they did earlier. Same deal here.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:18 am

panini press wrote:Copy-paste time again.

Depending on one’s religious rearing, one will favour one view over the other. For example, most Hindus castigate Aurangzeb as a religious bigot who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them unjustly, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them, did not appoint them in high administrative positions, who interfered in their religious matters. On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years.

Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti- Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal-minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decisions to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:19 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i have already stated that Aurangzeb was communal and i gave the evidence: he reimposed jaziya.
You are wrong. Aurangzeb cannot possibly be communal, just like the Nizam was not communal. Consider this: Guru Gobind Singh praised Aurangzeb. If Aurangzeb would have been communal, Guru Gobind Singh would not have praised him. No Sikh leaders wrote poems in praise of the great munificence of the Nizams. Also, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu as the commander-in-chief of his military. The Nizam did not do this. Aurangzeb's policy was set by Hindus. The Nizam's policy was not. Aurangzeb appointed Hindus to lots of prominent positions -- more than the Nizam and Akbar. You claimed earlier that the Nizam is not communal because some Hindu landlords sided with the Nizam's Razakars. By that measure, Aurangzeb is not at all communal. Please do not contradict yourself now just because Aurangzeb lost his head in later years and got some of your ancestors roughed up.

Aurangzeb was communal because he reimposed jaziya (special tax on non-muslims). Nizam did not impose jaziya on non-muslims.

.

.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:25 am

I am posting this in a different color for greater impact. I am also underlining some words for emphasis.

On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years.

Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti- Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal-minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decisions to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:26 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i have already stated that Aurangzeb was communal and i gave the evidence: he reimposed jaziya.
You are wrong. Aurangzeb cannot possibly be communal, just like the Nizam was not communal. Consider this: Guru Gobind Singh praised Aurangzeb. If Aurangzeb would have been communal, Guru Gobind Singh would not have praised him. No Sikh leaders wrote poems in praise of the great munificence of the Nizams. Also, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu as the commander-in-chief of his military. The Nizam did not do this. Aurangzeb's policy was set by Hindus. The Nizam's policy was not. Aurangzeb appointed Hindus to lots of prominent positions -- more than the Nizam and Akbar. You claimed earlier that the Nizam is not communal because some Hindu landlords sided with the Nizam's Razakars. By that measure, Aurangzeb is not at all communal. Please do not contradict yourself now just because Aurangzeb lost his head in later years and got some of your ancestors roughed up.

Aurangzeb was communal because he reimposed jaziya (special tax on non-muslims). Nizam did not impose jaziya on non-muslims.

.

.

.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:29 am

On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years.

Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti- Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal-minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decisions to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:32 am

Just wanted to say that based on colors, font sizes, bolds and underlines, it is clear that I am winning this argument. Yay for me.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:32 am

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:32 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:You are wrong. Aurangzeb cannot possibly be communal, just like the Nizam was not communal. Consider this: Guru Gobind Singh praised Aurangzeb. If Aurangzeb would have been communal, Guru Gobind Singh would not have praised him. No Sikh leaders wrote poems in praise of the great munificence of the Nizams. Also, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu as the commander-in-chief of his military. The Nizam did not do this. Aurangzeb's policy was set by Hindus. The Nizam's policy was not. Aurangzeb appointed Hindus to lots of prominent positions -- more than the Nizam and Akbar. You claimed earlier that the Nizam is not communal because some Hindu landlords sided with the Nizam's Razakars. By that measure, Aurangzeb is not at all communal. Please do not contradict yourself now just because Aurangzeb lost his head in later years and got some of your ancestors roughed up.

Aurangzeb was communal because he reimposed jaziya (special tax on non-muslims). Nizam did not impose jaziya on non-muslims.

.

.

.

.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:32 am

panini press wrote:Just wanted to say that based on colors, font sizes, bolds and underlines, it is clear that I am winning this argument. Yay for me.

.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:34 am

blabberwock wrote:

This is the latest thread in my much-acclaimed series, Generous Sides of Despotic Tyrants. Based on the excellent source material and scholarly research I have posted here, I think this thread can become the longest-ever.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:35 am

panini press wrote:On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years.

Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti- Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal-minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decisions to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:35 am

panini press wrote:
blabberwock wrote:
This is the latest thread in my much-acclaimed series, Generous Sides of Despotic Tyrants. Based on the excellent source material and scholarly research I have posted here, I think this thread can become the longest-ever.

When will you get to Pol Pot?

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:37 am

Aurangzeb cannot possibly be communal, just like the Nizam was not communal. Consider this: Guru Gobind Singh praised Aurangzeb. If Aurangzeb would have been communal, Guru Gobind Singh would not have praised him. No Sikh leaders wrote poems in praise of the great munificence of the Nizams. Also, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu as the commander-in-chief of his military. The Nizam did not do this. Aurangzeb's policy was set by Hindus. The Nizam's policy was not. Aurangzeb appointed Hindus to lots of prominent positions -- more than the Nizam and Akbar. Rashmun claimed earlier that the Nizam is not communal because some Hindu landlords sided with the Nizam's Razakars. By that measure, Aurangzeb is not at all communal. Rashmun is contradicting himself now just because Aurangzeb lost his head in later years and got some of his ancestors roughed up.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:40 am

blabberwock wrote:
panini press wrote:
blabberwock wrote:
This is the latest thread in my much-acclaimed series, Generous Sides of Despotic Tyrants. Based on the excellent source material and scholarly research I have posted here, I think this thread can become the longest-ever.

When will you get to Pol Pot?

Pol Pot is a bachcha compared to Aurangzeb and Nizam. Pol Pot was born in 1925. Aurangzeb was born in 1618. Nizam was born on the day god created the world.

by Idéfix Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:42 am

This thread is on the verge of breaking into two pages. One more dot and it will get there. Jai Aurangzeb.

by Sponsored content