Re: Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:40 pm

panini press wrote:Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 8.

Criterion Aurangzeb The Nizam Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief Yes No Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus Yes No Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh Yes No Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government Yes No Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins Yes No Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded Yes Yes Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus No No Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus No No Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly Yes Yes Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras Yes Yes Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples Yes Yes Both about the same
Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Note 4: When I made the last revision, I was a little unfair to the Nizam. I said, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communal x 10. But that was before, when the temple building in Chitrakoot was an advantage for Aurangzeb. Now that both candidates are tied on that, I revised my comparison above. (Again, see how fair I am to the Nizam when facts are presented.)

Note 5: Added a line for Aurangzeb's firman.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:41 pm

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

I used to be a good dotter.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:41 pm

panini press wrote:
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)
Guru Gobind Singh's verses praising Aurangzeb are recited at a gurdwara:

Watch from 5:24. As the section with praise of Aurangzeb begins, the person reciting the Persian poem explains to the congregation in Punjabi: "these next verses are those in which the Guruji praises Aurangzeb." Then he proceeds to recite the Farsi poem. Read the English subtitles.

It is clear that Sikhs consider this an authentic work of Guru Gobind Singh. Rashmun, your questioning of the authenticity of these verses just shows your hatred towards Aurangzeb. Why do you hate him so much?

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:42 pm

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 Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:42 pm

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 Nov 19, 2012 5:45 pm

Rashmun has repeatedly accused Aurangzeb of being communal, using the idea that he imposed jaziya on Hindus. Here is the truth about the jaziya.

---

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

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

As Rashmun helpfully explained earlier, this is very similar to what the Razakars did. If a Hindu were to join the Razakars in fighting the enemies of the state he would be welcomed. If he refused to join up and instead supported the enemies of the state, he would be punished as a traitor. You cannot call the ruler who created one system communal while calling the creator of the other system secular.

PS: The colors were a little off on this one, so fixed it.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:45 pm

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

These references clearly show that accusations of forced conversion and religious intolerance are false. It is also evident that since the independence of India in 1947, there has been an overt attempt by revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians in India to malign the Muslim history.

---

It is sad to see Rashmun side with revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians -- despite professing belief in secularism -- when it comes to the secular legacy of Aurangzeb the Great.

.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:46 pm

panini press wrote:
panini press wrote:It is time to copy-paste the next paragraph of this article. I know SuCHers must be eager with anticipation to read its contents.

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of e]]Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kashi (Varanasi)[/u] can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the 50-year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138)

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

---

It is high time that people like Rashmun stopped calling Aurangzeb communal. He was clearly secular in that he gave land grants to temples in Kashi, the epicenter of Hinduism located in the holy state of Uttar Pradesh.
This particular post has been referenced in another thread. For completeness, I am going to reference that thread here: https://such.forumotion.com/t8507p50-was-rana-pratap-an-ass#64403.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:46 pm

panini press wrote:It is an axiom of Rashmunian History that no defense of a Muslim tyrant is ever complete without mentioning that kings of other faiths did the same thing too. Let me uphold that great tradition with Aurangzeb the Great and jaziya.

---

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).

---

It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier today. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:46 pm

panini press wrote:Here is another nail in coffin of the idea that jaziya was communal.

Zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘Ushr (10% of agricultural produce) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called Nisab). They also had to pay sadaqah, fitrah and Khums. None of these taxes were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita tax collection from Muslims was many folds higher than that of non-Muslims.

---

Aurangzeb taxed Muslims at a higher tax rate than he taxed Hindus. This proves that he was thoroughly secular. He was even more secular than the current government of India which taxes all its citizens at the same rates regardless of religion.

Almost forgot the link -- oops! Here it is: http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:46 pm

panini press wrote: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 Nov 19, 2012 5:47 pm

I am making up for lost time. So I am using the science and the art of dotting to make up for my lack of content here.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:47 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 Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:48 pm

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 8.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Note 4: When I made the last revision, I was a little unfair to the Nizam. I said, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communal x 10. But that was before, when the temple building in Chitrakoot was an advantage for Aurangzeb. Now that both candidates are tied on that, I revised my comparison above. (Again, see how fair I am to the Nizam when facts are presented.)

Note 5: Added a line for Aurangzeb's firman.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:49 pm

panini press wrote:
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 Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:50 pm

panini press wrote: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 Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:50 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 Nov 19, 2012 5:51 pm

panini press wrote: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 Nov 19, 2012 5:52 pm

panini press wrote:Rashmun, do you still think jaziya is communal?

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:52 pm

Here is more proof of the secular ways of Aurangzeb the Great. In the library of the Benares Hindu University, in the great holy state of Uttar Pradesh, there is a firman (imperial edict) issued by Aurangzeb. The full text of the firman with English and Hindi translations are provided at this site: http://indianmuslims.in/aurangzeb-in-banaras-hindu-university/

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 4 5829022881_1766c3b9a3

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 4 5829022881_1766c3b9a3

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 4 5829022903_8e6b67a158

---

In this firman, Aurangzeb directs his people to not harm brahmins or Hindu temples. This shows that Aurangzeb was secular.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:52 pm

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 8.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Note 4: When I made the last revision, I was a little unfair to the Nizam. I said, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communal x 10. But that was before, when the temple building in Chitrakoot was an advantage for Aurangzeb. Now that both candidates are tied on that, I revised my comparison above. (Again, see how fair I am to the Nizam when facts are presented.)

Note 5: Added a line for Aurangzeb's firman.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:53 pm

Jaziya is used as an excuse by critics of Aurangzeb to paint him as communal. In fact, jaziya was not communal at all. It was only levied on men who didn't want to sign up for the army. These critics of Aurangzeb probably had ancestors who were roughed up by Aurangzeb when they were too afraid to sign up for the army, so they are defaming him now -- after poor Aurangzeb has been dead for so long!

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).

It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:54 pm

I have decided to copy paste this article in full.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/419225/another-view-on-aurangzeb/

Historians do not often agree on much, least of all about South Asian history, but there seems to be an almost unanimous consensus that the downfall of the Mughal Empire should be blamed on Aurangzeb.

Most historians who study the Mughal Empire have sought to blame the sixth emperor entirely for its collapse, contrasting his religious conservatism with his great grandfather Akbar’s eclectic tolerance that undoubtedly led to architectural innovations and cultural synthesis during the latter’s reign. Those who admire the synergetic traditions that developed in Akbar’s court point to the stylistic fusion that took place in Fatehpur Sikri and to how some talented Hindus played an important role in his administration.
But even as Aurangzeb’s sectarian and messianic tendencies may have been the immediate catalyst for some of the rebellions that eventually triggered the downfall of the Mughal Empire, they should not be seen as the sole reasons for the empire’s disintegration. Challenges to Mughal rule had already begun right after Akbar’s military successes and historians, who write admiringly and uncritically about Akbar’s “secularism” and eclectic tastes and draw too sharp a distinction between Akbar and Aurangzeb, miss many such crucial points.

One of the points that these historians appear to overlook is that although most Mughals were consciously “secular”, at no point during their rule did they allot administrative posts in proportion to the actual population of Muslims and Hindus; Muslims were always over-represented. It is pertinent, then, that although Aurangzeb identified closely with Islamic orthodoxy, more Hindus were employed in his court than Akbar’s. Aurangzeb, like his predecessors, continued the practice of seeking alliances with Hindu rulers but he abandoned the practice of developing marital ties with them. This decision did come with a cost and it is true that without the bonds of inter-marriage and with a tax base that was becoming less stable, the motivation for the Rajputs to fight Mughal battles began to wane.

Furthermore, in their support of the arts and music, the tastes of the early Mughals remained strongly biased towards the Muslim traditions of Central Asia and Persia. The only foreign non-Muslim influences were the Chinese traditions. Miniatures sponsored by Babar were entirely in the Samarqand/Bukhara tradition while, during Akbar’s rule, Persian and Western imitations also became popular.

Interestingly it was only with Akbar’s son Jahangir, who was born of a Rajput mother, that the Mughal arts lost their hotchpotch and uneven character and began to develop a distinctive and more consistent style. Jehangir was considerably influenced by Rajput tastes and rewarded skilled Hindu artisans with prominent positions in his court. With a remarkable eye for excellence in design and execution in the arts and crafts, he encouraged talent and promoted merit without discrimination. He also took an interest in local flora and fauna and, like Akbar, had an interest in philosophy. Aurangzeb’s elder brother Dara Shikoh and father Shah Jahan were inheritors of this taste for creative sophistication and ornamental exuberance.

Yet even as it became more influenced by indigenous Indian cultures, Mughal court culture remained inaccessible to ordinary citizens of the empire. With Shah Jahan, a refined delicacy came to define courtly tastes, but there was also a trend towards rarefied formalism, which prevented the Mughal tradition from imbibing popular and folk influences in the manner of the Rajput or Bundelkhand rulers.

Mughal courtly culture also remained somewhat apart from the folk traditions of the Indian masses through the promotion of Persian as the language of culture, and Urdu as the language of administration. Although popular with urban intellectuals and the cultural elite, Urdu, with its plethora of Persian and Arabic words and non-Indian script could not gain mass acceptance and remained a language primarily of the elite. Outside the Hindi belt, this was an even bigger problem.

But it was not just a cultural aloofness or the dominance of the Muslim minority that made Mughal rule unpalatable. Even more fundamental factors were in play. For instance, the high rate of taxation on the peasantry was simply unsustainable. But another important reason for the unravelling of Mughal power was that beyond Sindh, Punjab, Kashmir and the Yamuna and Gangetic plains, Mughal rule had simply not made enough of a positive contribution to justify its continuity.

It is therefore somewhat ironic that some of the highest admiration for the Mughal Empire’s “unification” of India into a highly centralised polity comes from people who are ardent advocates of economic and political decentralisation of modern India. Another factor often ignored is that the “unification” of India that Akbar had achieved was almost entirely through war and coercion.

But more importantly, the benefits of this centralisation did not flow throughout the empire. Some territories paid tribute but received no tangible gains in exchange. In particular, the regions corresponding to present-day Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Chota Nagpur and Vidarbha, eastern Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and much of North Bihar were starved of investment, and experienced stagnation or decline.

Furthermore, beyond the main trade routes that linked northern India to the rest of the world, the Mughal state invested neither in agricultural expansion nor in manufacturing or infrastructure to promote trade. Since the bulk of the Mughal manufacturing towns was located either along the Yamuna and Gangetic plains (or along the Indus), it is no coincidence that Mughal legitimacy survived primarily only in these regions of India.

Thus, considering the steady drain of wealth from areas further away from Mughal capitals and urban centres, it was almost inevitable that alienation from Mughal rule would set in very quickly. The plateau regions of Central India (and other outlying regions) simply had no stake in a unified Mughal empire and that is why a broad and secular coalition of forces arose in defiance of Mughal authority in such areas.

Unfortunately, such shortcomings of Mughal rule have largely escaped the attention of serious historians in India. And those who have been critical have focused almost exclusively on the communal angle (on the repression of Hindu religion and culture), ignoring socio-economic and political factors that may have been equally, or far more, relevant. Communally focused critics of Mughal rule have often ignored how particular caste categories offered their services and allegiance to the Mughals, and received tangible benefits in return. The Kayasthas in particular experienced upward mobility as they rose from being scribes and junior record-keepers to holding important administrative posts, and achieved a social rank comparable to court Brahmins. Mercantile caste categories also had a stake in the success of Mughal rule. Hindu money-lenders and shopkeepers did quite well in the prosperous Mughal towns, and a majority of the top revenue administrators under the Mughals (even during the reign of Aurangzeb) were either Hindu Banias or Brahmins.

Bihar’s Maithil Brahmins had been promoted by earlier Islamic rulers, and their regional and local authority was not challenged by the Mughals. And while other regional Hindu rulers (such as the Mewar and Hill Rajputs, or the Bundelkhandis) often felt oppressed by Mughal rule, they nevertheless lived lives of considerable comfort and leisure, and this restrained them from organising collectively and mounting any serious challenge to Mughal rule.
But perhaps the most crippling deficiency of Mughal rule was the failure of Mughal rulers to devote even a fraction of their treasuries to anything resembling modern education. In that respect, Aurangzeb can be held to blame as he was especially sceptical about the relevance of modern science and technology. Whereas the European nations had begun to invest in printed books and public universities, the Mughal rulers demonstrated at best a passing interest in the sciences. As a result, even though the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb had successfully fended off the expansion of European trading settlements in India, no durable foundation for the unity and scientific advancement of India had been laid by the Mughals. Mughal rule had left India largely incapable of dealing with the challenge of European military and cultural ascendance.

For British historians, however, treating Mughal rule as the high point of Indian civilisation has served a tactical purpose: by depicting it as such, they have tried to create an impression that all great things in India have required external stimulus.

Their interest in Mughal rule has also stemmed from the subconscious desire to represent colonial rule in India as not too different from that of the Mughals. The fact that the Mughals came as alien conquerors and created a vast empire gives apologists for British colonial rule an excuse to ignore the uniquely devastating consequences of European colonisation.

That the Mughals increased the taxes on the peasantry, introduced a language that was laden with foreign words and written in a foreign script, and in certain respects remained aloof and apart from indigenous cultural trends, makes British rule appear more a continuation than a sharp departure from the Indian experience.

But in spite of such parallels, there are vital and important distinctions that separate Mughal rule from British rule in India. Firstly, at no point during the Mughal rule was the impoverishment of the peasantry and the broad masses as extreme as it was during the period of British colonisation. It should also be noted that whereas Indian manufactures acquired a well-deserved reputation for outstanding quality, and were in great demand during the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, India became a dumping ground for European exports and manufacturing suffered a precipitous decline after the Battle of Plassey.

For all their flaws and alien instincts, the Mughals came to settle in India. Over time, they became steadily indigenised and that is why the last Mughals resisted the British during the rebellion of 1857. Local influences rubbed off on the Mughals to a much greater extent than on the British rulers.

But more importantly, even as the Mughals frittered away the wealth they extracted from the peasantry, their legacy of fine arts and architecture remained in India and India’s wealth was not systematically transferred to another country (as was the case with the British).

Thus, no matter how artfully British intellectuals have used their representations of Mughal rule to rationalise the immiserization of India during British rule, the colossal drain of wealth and destruction that took place simply has no parallels in Indian history. For that reason, Mughal rule cannot and should not be equated to European colonisation.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:55 pm

well, I'm sold. the last post sounds/looks/feels credible since it has multiple fonts with important looking colors and url links to respectable websites. I'm also impressed by the underlined items and bolded words - obviously the matter has been much researched.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:56 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 Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:57 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:well, I'm sold. the last post sounds/looks/feels credible since it has multiple fonts with important looking colors and url links to respectable websites. I'm also impressed by the underlined items and bolded words - obviously the matter has been much researched.

Thank you. it occurs to me that this a one-stop thread for students wanting to write a senior undergraduate or masters thesis on Aurangzeb. there is sufficient material here also to give pointers for PhD level research on these topics.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:01 pm

In the Nizam thread, I created a graphic summary of his various sides. I am now inspired to create a similar summary of Aurangzeb's various sides. This picture, along with the picture I created of the Nizam, can be used for side-by-side comparisons of the several sides of these two distinguished kings. In addition to the ready-reference table above, this picture will be one more tool for future generations of researchers.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:02 pm

Major good news for fans of Aurangzeb. Many thanks to Rashmun for making these facts about Aurangzeb the Great known to me.

1. Aurangzeb did not attempt to rape his brother's widow. This shows his generous side.

2. Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on all Hindus. His Hindu nobles and chieftains were not charged jaziya. This shows that he is not communal, contrary to the claims of Rashmun.

3. Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on women, children or the elderly. This shows his generous side.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:04 pm

Here is more proof of the secular ways of Aurangzeb the Great. In the library of the Benares Hindu University, in the great holy state of Uttar Pradesh, there is a firman (imperial edict) issued by Aurangzeb. The full text of the firman with English and Hindi translations are provided at this site: http://indianmuslims.in/aurangzeb-in-banaras-hindu-university/

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 4 5829022881_1766c3b9a3

---

In this firman, Aurangzeb directs his people to not harm brahmins or Hindu temples. This shows that Aurangzeb was secular.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:05 pm

Jaziya is used as an excuse by critics of Aurangzeb to paint him as communal. In fact, jaziya was not communal at all. It was only levied on men who didn't want to sign up for the army. These critics of Aurangzeb probably had ancestors who were roughed up by Aurangzeb when they were too afraid to sign up for the army, so they are defaming him now -- after poor Aurangzeb has been dead for so long!

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).

It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:05 pm

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 8.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Note 4: When I made the last revision, I was a little unfair to the Nizam. I said, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communal x 10. But that was before, when the temple building in Chitrakoot was an advantage for Aurangzeb. Now that both candidates are tied on that, I revised my comparison above. (Again, see how fair I am to the Nizam when facts are presented.)

Note 5: Added a line for Aurangzeb's firman.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:06 pm

panini press wrote:Jaziya is used as an excuse by critics of Aurangzeb to paint him as communal. In fact, jaziya was not communal at all. It was only levied on men who didn't want to sign up for the army. These critics of Aurangzeb probably had ancestors who were roughed up by Aurangzeb when they were too afraid to sign up for the army, so they are defaming him now -- after poor Aurangzeb has been dead for so long!

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).

It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:07 pm

One of the points that these historians appear to overlook is that although most Mughals were consciously “secular”, at no point during their rule did they allot administrative posts in proportion to the actual population of Muslims and Hindus; Muslims were always over-represented. It is pertinent, then, that although Aurangzeb identified closely with Islamic orthodoxy, more Hindus were employed in his court than Akbar’s.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/419225/another-view-on-aurangzeb/

---

Yes, Aurangzeb was secular, just like the Nizam.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:08 pm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110110062814AAmUDaT

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 4 Captur19

According to this Yahoo! Answers question-asker, the "VERY GOOD" "EXCELLENT" response is that Aurangzeb was the greatest king among the Mughals. Take that, Akbar.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:13 pm

Here is one more article that offers good reasons why Aurangzeb imposed jaziya on Hindus. You see, Aurangzeb was secular at heart, but his ulema wanted jaziya so Aurangzeb reluctantly went along with it.

---

http://islamoblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/akbar-vs-aurangzeb-part-2-of-6.html

In 1679 Aurangzeb also reinstated the jizyah tax after Akbar had removed it in 1579.

The general policy towards dhimmis in India can be seen as a reflection of the Ulemas influence on Aurangzeb to run India as Dar al-Islam, when it was actually not a nation of majority Muslims. Aurangzeb’s dhimmi policies were reflective of the influence of the Ulema, rather than his own doings, because of two reasons; Aurangzeb’s being forced to kill his brother, who was considered by him to be an atheist and who’s convictions were reminiscent of Akbar in his heterodox and syncretism, and also because of Aurangzeb is quoted as saying, “What connection have earthly affairs with religion? And what right have administrative works to meddle with bigotry? For you is your religion and for me is mine”. A clear indication of his personal belief of India to be governed not as a Dar-al-Islam, but as a secular nation with Hinduism and Islam existing side by side in a mutually exclusive relationship. The quote is also reflective of his ties to the Naqshbandiyya order.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:16 pm

More similarities between Akbar and Aurangzeb.

---

http://islamoblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/akbar-vs-aurangzeb-part-3-of-6-roles-of_17.html

None of Akbars successors placed as much importance on visiting the shrine of Ajmer, nor did they visit on as many occasions, though other mosques and gardens were erected in Shaykh Chishti’s honor by them. Aurangzeb visited the shrine too, in 1659 and 1679, and, just like Akbar, made Ajmer his base of operations for campaigns against Mewar and Udaipur, and gave thanks to the Shaykh Chishti by visiting the shrine after victories.[xii]

Akbar and Aurangzeb were similar in their goals to keep India prosperous and have as much control as possible without upsetting their main base of support, it was the differences in their methods of achieving this goal, and the conflictions with their religious convictions that made maintaining peace among their support lines difficult.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:18 pm

panini press wrote:Major good news for fans of Aurangzeb. Many thanks to Rashmun for making these facts about Aurangzeb the Great known to me.

1. Aurangzeb did not attempt to rape his brother's widow. This shows his generous side.

I was under the impression that she merely fell on his privates accidentally. he might have acted impulsively being a young king at the time.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:18 pm

Upon winning the battle against his brother, Aurangzeb took his seat on the Mughal throne in 1658, and immediately began to implement reforms his father was negligent to impose. For example, in 1659, Aurangzeb he prohibited drinking, gambling, prostitution and narcotic use. In 1664, he banned Sati, a tradition that had crept back into society 100 years after Akbar had banned it.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:20 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
panini press wrote:Major good news for fans of Aurangzeb. Many thanks to Rashmun for making these facts about Aurangzeb the Great known to me.

1. Aurangzeb did not attempt to rape his brother's widow. This shows his generous side.

I was under the impression that she merely fell on his privates accidentally. he might have acted impulsively being a young king at the time.

Yes, we need to know how to read and write Persian before we can truly understand what happened. Many kings made many many mistakes at different times. I will post the mistakes Hindu kings made so you can rest easy on this count.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:21 pm

panini press wrote:Upon winning the battle against his brother, Aurangzeb took his seat on the Mughal throne in 1658, and immediately began to implement reforms his father was negligent to impose. For example, in 1659, Aurangzeb he prohibited drinking, gambling, prostitution and narcotic use. In 1664, he banned Sati, a tradition that had crept back into society 100 years after Akbar had banned it.

Aurangzeb was a strong advocate of women's rights. He abolished sati, just like Akbar. This same sati was later also abolished by the British, proving that Aurangzeb was indeed secular.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:25 pm

Obviously, some temples were destroyed during Aurangzeb's reign. This happened despite the emperor's wishes expressed in his firman. Also:

It should also be noted that his temple destruction policy was mainly directed at temples where political aspirations against him were being plotted, as well as temples that breeded anti-social activity and corruption.

http://islamoblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/akbar-vs-aurangzeb-part-5-of-6-temple.html

Aurangzeb was basically a reformer of Hinduism. He abolished sati and destroyed temples that were breeding anti-social activity and corruption. In this connection, he took the example of his grandfather, Jahangir. Jahangir had the Sikh guru executed because he was a traitor. Similarly, temples that had political aspirations against Aurangzeb were destroyed by him. We know full well that Jahangir's actions were thoroughly secular, so it follows that Aurangzeb's actions were secular as well.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:28 pm

Aurangzeb was a great law-abiding king. Here is a story in this regard.

http://islamoblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/akbar-vs-aurangzeb-part-5-of-6-temple.html

Aurangzeb, though, did not only destroy temples, he also issued many farman’s for their construction. His destruction of temples has been greatly exaggerated by his critics, both contemporary and not, to prove his religious bigotry. This bigotry can infact, if existent, be attributed to the Ulema, who were pushing for very harsh, uncompromising and violent rulings. One must remember that it was the Ulema that had persuaded Aurangzeb to kill his own brother, Dara Shikoh, upon his capture, instead of Aurangzeb’s personal choice to have him exiled. Aurangzeb, throughout his reign, had practiced tolerance in accordance to Islamic law, and was a great believer in carrying out the law letter by letter. For example, one story recalls an incidence in the city of Allahabad, where a Muslim lady complained she wanted to build a Mosque on her land, but local Hindus opposed its construction. Instead of moving ahead and allowing it to go through as a mark of propagation of Islam, Aurangzeb ordered the issue be taken to court and both sides wait for the judge’s decision in this regard.

---

Again, it is not Aurangzeb's fault that some temples were destroyed. It was the ulema's fault. Just like Nizam was not responsible for what the Razakars did, Aurangzeb cannot be responsible for what the ulema did.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:31 pm

Here is more information about Aurangzeb's tax policies.

http://islamoblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/akbar-vs-aurangzeb-part-5-of-6-temple.html

Some historians also argue against Aurangzeb as a bigot with the argument of his enforcement of jizyah. His tax policy as a whole can actually be used against this argument since Hindu’s had to pay 5% of their annual salary in jizyah. Muslims had to pay 2.5% for their annual zakat payment. Also, any dhimmi who worked for the administration in any capacity, was exempt from paying taxes. Jizyah, it should also be noted, was a minute percentage of the overall revenue, and was only enforced in Northern India, and that was also only for a brief period of time. Aurangzeb also abolished up to 80 other taxes in India were enforced during the previous regimes, including a tax on bone collection of Hindu pilgrims at the Ganges River. Upon the death of Aurangzeb, his successor, Sultan Muhammad Shah, continued his policy of strict adherence to the Sharia, and governed India in a manner similar to Aurangzeb.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:35 pm

We are again close to breaking into the next page. So it is dotting time.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:36 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)

Guru Gobind Singh's verses praising Aurangzeb are recited at a gurdwara:

Watch from 5:24. As the section with praise of Aurangzeb begins, the person reciting the Persian poem explains to the congregation in Punjabi: "these next verses are those in which the Guruji praises Aurangzeb." Then he proceeds to recite the Farsi poem. Read the English subtitles.

It is clear that Sikhs consider this an authentic work of Guru Gobind Singh. Rashmun, your questioning of the authenticity of these verses just shows your hatred towards Aurangzeb. Why do you hate him so much?

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:36 pm

panini press wrote:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110110062814AAmUDaT

According to this Yahoo! Answers question-asker, the "VERY GOOD" "EXCELLENT" response is that Aurangzeb was the greatest king among the Mughals. Take that, Akbar.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:36 pm

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 Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:37 pm

panini press wrote:Upon winning the battle against his brother, Aurangzeb took his seat on the Mughal throne in 1658, and immediately began to implement reforms his father was negligent to impose. For example, in 1659, Aurangzeb he prohibited drinking, gambling, prostitution and narcotic use. In 1664, he banned Sati, a tradition that had crept back into society 100 years after Akbar had banned it.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:37 pm

panini press wrote:Obviously, some temples were destroyed during Aurangzeb's reign. This happened despite the emperor's wishes expressed in his firman. Also:

It should also be noted that his temple destruction policy was mainly directed at temples where political aspirations against him were being plotted, as well as temples that breeded anti-social activity and corruption.

http://islamoblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/akbar-vs-aurangzeb-part-5-of-6-temple.html

Aurangzeb was basically a reformer of Hinduism. He abolished sati and destroyed temples that were breeding anti-social activity and corruption. In this connection, he took the example of his grandfather, Jahangir. Jahangir had the Sikh guru executed because he was a traitor. Similarly, temples that had political aspirations against Aurangzeb were destroyed by him. We know full well that Jahangir's actions were thoroughly secular, so it follows that Aurangzeb's actions were secular as well.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:38 pm

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 8.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Abolished sati to protect Hindu women	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot/Nanded	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Gave money to Hindu temples/university in Benaras	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Destroyed some Hindu temples	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

Note 1: The table has been updated with Rashmun's latest point about giving money to Hindu temples/university, and about destruction of temples.

Note 2: This table was growing too big. So I have pruned some unremarkable common features of Aurangzeb and Nizam, like both of them being praised for their generosity, and both of them not attempting to rape their brother's widows. While commendable, these characteristics do not help us differentiate between these two fine rulers, hence the deletion.

Note 3: I have revised this table to incorporate evidence of the Nizam building a gurdwara. Aurangzeb built a temple in Chitrakoot, and Nizam built a gurdwara in Nanded. I have no problem admitting this and changing my mind about that point of comparison. From "Aurangzeb", that line item now goes to "Both about the same." Congratulations Nizam and Rashmun!

Note 4: When I made the last revision, I was a little unfair to the Nizam. I said, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is not-communal x 10. But that was before, when the temple building in Chitrakoot was an advantage for Aurangzeb. Now that both candidates are tied on that, I revised my comparison above. (Again, see how fair I am to the Nizam when facts are presented.)

Note 5: Added a line for Aurangzeb's firman. Also added Aurangzeb's ban on sati.

by Sponsored content