panini press wrote:Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu temples. How factual is this accusation against a man who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur’an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (Qur’an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Rejecters) clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his stature, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

This is conclusive proof that Aurangzeb did not really destroy the temples he is accused of destroying. If he did destroy those temples, there is no way he would be considered a saintly emperor.

.

As you can see from the pictures above, there are significant differences between Aurangzeb and the Nizam. I am going to highlight those differences.

1. Miserly side: Aurangzeb's miserly side is a tad longer than Nizam's. Aurangzeb wins this one, but barely.

2. Philandering side: Aurangzeb's philandering side is tiny compared to the Nizam's. The Nizam wins this one by a lot.

3. Generous side: While the Nizam has a prominent generous side, Aurangzeb has him beat in this department. Sorry Nizam.

4. Treacherous side: Aurangzeb showed excellent potential in this department in his early years, but once he became top dog, he lost some of his treacherous edge. He was awesome at treachery when he fought his father and brothers. But the Nizam beats him easily with his support for Pakistan when India was at war with that ocuntry.

5. Deceitful side: There is no clear winner on this one. Both about the same.

6. Power-hungry side: The Nizam was no pushover when it came to hunger for power, but he can't hold a candle to Aurangzeb the Great in this department. Aurangzeb killed his own brothers to secure his hold on power. Nizam had no such luck; Aurangzeb wins.

7. Communal side: Aurangzeb has the stronger reputation for having a well-developed communal side, but that is only because the Nizam is not well-known outside Telangana. When evaluated on facts, it is clear that the Nizam has a much more elongated communal side than Aurangzeb. https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p150-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67029

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

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.

On the topic of jaziya, here are some more details.

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.

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

---

This clearly demolishes Rashmun's claim that jaziya is communal. It is clear that jaziya was secular just like the Nizam was secular.

Rashmun, don't be afraid to post about Aurangzeb.

I am done for the morning session. We (Aurangzeb, I, and our love story) are over 6 pages now. Time permitting, I will be performing more dotting activities in the late afternoon to get this over the 7 page milestone.

panini press wrote:I am done for the morning session. We (Aurangzeb, I, and our love story) are over 6 pages now. Time permitting, I will be performing more dotting activities in the late afternoon to get this over the 7 page milestone.

time may permit, if there's any time left to steal from your employer. they couldn't, after all, give you a bonus of less than $0. they could, of course, fire you.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panini press wrote:I am done for the morning session. We (Aurangzeb, I, and our love story) are over 6 pages now. Time permitting, I will be performing more dotting activities in the late afternoon to get this over the 7 page milestone.

time may permit, if there's any time left to steal from your employer. they couldn't, after all, give you a bonus of less than $0. they could, of course, fire you.

Better than stealing one's own time. At least, what little is left of it.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panini press wrote:I am done for the morning session. We (Aurangzeb, I, and our love story) are over 6 pages now. Time permitting, I will be performing more dotting activities in the late afternoon to get this over the 7 page milestone.

time may permit, if there's any time left to steal from your employer. they couldn't, after all, give you a bonus of less than $0. they could, of course, fire you.

Does it make you feel good to imagine that?

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panini press wrote:I am done for the morning session. We (Aurangzeb, I, and our love story) are over 6 pages now. Time permitting, I will be performing more dotting activities in the late afternoon to get this over the 7 page milestone.

time may permit, if there's any time left to steal from your employer. they couldn't, after all, give you a bonus of less than $0. they could, of course, fire you.

Better than stealing one's own time. At least, what little is left of it.

angel darlin', it's impossible to steal one's own time.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panini press wrote:I am done for the morning session. We (Aurangzeb, I, and our love story) are over 6 pages now. Time permitting, I will be performing more dotting activities in the late afternoon to get this over the 7 page milestone.

time may permit, if there's any time left to steal from your employer. they couldn't, after all, give you a bonus of less than $0. they could, of course, fire you.

Better than stealing one's own time. At least, what little is left of it.

angel darlin', it's impossible to steal one's own time.

Is it, now? Does this impossibility apply only to you, or to anyone who is not working a 9-to-5 job?

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panini press wrote:I am done for the morning session. We (Aurangzeb, I, and our love story) are over 6 pages now. Time permitting, I will be performing more dotting activities in the late afternoon to get this over the 7 page milestone.

time may permit, if there's any time left to steal from your employer. they couldn't, after all, give you a bonus of less than $0. they could, of course, fire you.

Better than stealing one's own time. At least, what little is left of it.

angel darlin', it's impossible to steal one's own time.

panini press wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panini press wrote:I am done for the morning session. We (Aurangzeb, I, and our love story) are over 6 pages now. Time permitting, I will be performing more dotting activities in the late afternoon to get this over the 7 page milestone.

time may permit, if there's any time left to steal from your employer. they couldn't, after all, give you a bonus of less than $0. they could, of course, fire you.

Better than stealing one's own time. At least, what little is left of it.

angel darlin', it's impossible to steal one's own time.

Is it, now? Does this impossibility apply only to you, or to anyone who is not working a 9-to-5 job?

He has nothing left for anyone to steal. So perhaps in his case it is true.

The most ROFLworthy parts of this epic thread are the mental maps of the two gents and of course, that ever expanding tabular comparison.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The most ROFLworthy parts of this epic thread are the mental maps of the two gents and of course, that ever expanding tabular comparison.

Which two gents?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The most ROFLworthy parts of this epic thread are the mental maps of the two gents and of course, that ever expanding tabular comparison.

Thank you. I appreciate that so many people are avidly reading this thread for its informational content. I take my sycophancy rather seriously, and am willing to create my own illustrations to back up my hero-worship. The right balance of copy-paste, dotting, original illustration, absolute opinion, and personal subjective opinion is IMO the secret to running an epic thread.

Hellsangel wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The most ROFLworthy parts of this epic thread are the mental maps of the two gents and of course, that ever expanding tabular comparison.

Which two gents?

Here: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p250-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67146

A good painting of Aurangzeb. Shakespeare wrote of the great emperor: "Yon Alamgir has a lean and hungry look!"

Here is a fuller image of the same portrait. I would like to draw your attention to the feather in his innovative hat. He also looks somewhat better nourished in this full picture than in the previous one.

When you looked at the picture above, you no doubt wondered, "what does that good-looking man look like in profile?" Wonder no more. Here is the answer.

Question for connoisseurs of Mughal paintings: is that the emperor's hair emerging from the back of his generous hat, or is it a peacock feather?

Here is the full picture version of the above profile. Notice the halo around his head. As you know, halos are depicted around the heads of Hindu gods. If Aurangzeb was not secular, would he have allowed a halo to be shown around his head? Think, think!

Here is a line drawing of Aurangzeb in the European style. Notice how the Europeans have taken the agile, slim and lithe Aurangzeb and turned him into a corpulent old man.



Source: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb

Here is another excellent Mughal painting of Aurangzeb the Great. Notice the elaborate headdress. Also, the Great Mughal liked his pearls.

Here is a sweet Mughal miniature of three brothers: Shuja, Aurangzeb and Murad. It shows that Aurangzeb was quite close to his brothers.

Here is the full Mughal painting of Aurangzeb with halo. Notice that one of Aurangzeb's attendants does not sport a beard. If Aurangzeb was not secular, he would not have allowed his attendant be anything other than a devout, beard-sporting Muslim.

Here is Aurangzeb praying for world peace.

the feather in his cap indicates he's secular in outlook and tolerant of other cultures. you are well aware that peacocks and other birds of feather feature prominently in hindu mythology and arts. aurangazeb using the feather motif in his cap is his way of declaring his intentions of being bhai-bhai with hindus. this along with new evidence you so laboriously uncovered and proved beyond reasonable doubt that jaziya's a secular not communal gesture proves beyond doubt that aurangazeb was secular in outlook and tolerant of other religions, cultures etc.

Propagandhi711 wrote:the feather in his cap indicates he's secular in outlook and tolerant of other cultures. you are well aware that peacocks and other birds of feather feature prominently in hindu mythology and arts. aurangazeb using the feather motif in his cap is his way of declaring his intentions of being bhai-bhai with hindus. this along with new evidence you so laboriously uncovered and proved beyond reasonable doubt that jaziya's a secular not communal gesture proves beyond doubt that aurangazeb was secular in outlook and tolerant of other religions, cultures etc.

Thank you, that is a relief. I was distracted by the contemporary use of feathers by some groups in the Castro district here. It is laudable on Aurangzeb's part to signal his secularism so openly and publicly by sporting a feather in his imperial cap.

panini press wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:the feather in his cap indicates he's secular in outlook and tolerant of other cultures. you are well aware that peacocks and other birds of feather feature prominently in hindu mythology and arts. aurangazeb using the feather motif in his cap is his way of declaring his intentions of being bhai-bhai with hindus. this along with new evidence you so laboriously uncovered and proved beyond reasonable doubt that jaziya's a secular not communal gesture proves beyond doubt that aurangazeb was secular in outlook and tolerant of other religions, cultures etc.

Thank you, that is a relief. I was distracted by the contemporary use of feathers by some groups in the Castro district here. It is laudable on Aurangzeb's part to signal his secularism so openly and publicly by sporting a feather in his imperial cap.

its my feeling that akbar, babur and aurangazeb would have felt right at place in castro district and although there is no evidence, I might produce some wikilinks that might help with making tenuous connections.

Here is another article that shows Aurangzeb winning over Akbar.

---

http://archive.cscs.res.in/MediaArchive/education.nsf/(docid)/ABBBB49355FDA724652571850021EECD

AURANGZEB WINS OVER AKBAR IN TEXT BOOK

It’s now officially Akbar vs Aurangzeb.

When the National Council for Educational Research and Training “rewrites” history in its new social science textbooks for the next academic session from March, it will ensure that Aurangzeb has more space in the chapter on medieval history than Akbar.

“Why should we give so much space to Akbar and less to Aurangzeb? After all, Aurangzeb had many more activities to his credit than Akbar,” says Hari Om, the sole professor of history in the council. The social science text books are being authored by NCERT faculty members. The professor is digging into history and an old debate: was Akbar more significant than Aurangzeb?

But the authors of the new NCERT textbooks believe they have a “historical” role to play — to set the record “straight” by dropping “distortions” from the new textbooks and also the “irrelevant”.

History, in any case, will have to undergo a massive surgery to fit into the new social science textbooks, which will teach not only history, but civics, geography and economics as well. In the process, “unwanted” parts of history the current NCERT authors believe to be unnecessary will be cut out.

For instance, Professor Hari Om, who will author the section on modern Indian history, says: “Why should we elaborate so much about the 1857 mutiny? We will just sum it up — its causes and the fallout.”

I have some tremendous news for all fans of Aurangzeb. Bollywood has in recent years made movies about Ashoka and Akbar. Now they are making a movie with the inspiring title Aurangzeb.

---

After making a colourful entry with 'Aiyyaa', Prithviraj is much more kicked to start on with his second Bollywood outing.

While his debut movie garnered mixed reviews, the south actor is looking forward to make better impression with his next, 'Aurangzeb'- bannered under the premium production house Yash Raj Films.

Being directed by Atul Sabharwal, in the movie Prithviraj shares the screen space with Arjun Kapoor. In an interview the handsome actor said that unlike 'Aiyyaa', he won't be flaunting his well-built physique; instead its more performance oriented.

Although the film is titled 'Aurangzab', Prithviraj clarified that it is actually not a period film. He went on to justify that it is a contemporary story set in present day India.

"There is a reason to call it 'Aurangzeb' as it closely associated with what my and Arjun's characters go through in the film," he added.

http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/tamil/article/87581.html

It is noteworthy that Aurangzeb is still providing inspiration to Bollywood to name contemporary movies after him. If Aurangzeb was communal, this would not be the case.

PS: Where is the movie titled Nizam? Where, I ask?

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 10.

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
Inspired Bollywood to name movie after him	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.

Note 6: Added a line about inspiring Bollywood movies.

Please note that I have also updated the comparison to reflect the new data points; if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is now at least not-communal x 10 (earlier it was .

Fans of Aurangzeb will find this site quite entertaining: everything you need to know about the movie inspired by the great Alamgir.

http://www.ndtv.com/topic/aurangzeb

I have it from reliable sources that the popular northindian sweet jalebi is named after Aurangzeb. Here is a picture of some jalebis.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu temples. How factual is this accusation against a man who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur’an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (Qur’an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Rejecters) clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his stature, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

This is conclusive proof that Aurangzeb did not really destroy the temples he is accused of destroying. If he did destroy those temples, there is no way he would be considered a saintly emperor.

On the topic of jaziya, here are some more details.

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.

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

---

This clearly demolishes Rashmun's claim that jaziya is communal. It is clear that jaziya was secular just like the Nizam was secular.

Rashmun, don't be afraid to post about Aurangzeb.

panini press wrote:Here is a line drawing of Aurangzeb in the European style. Notice how the Europeans have taken the agile, slim and lithe Aurangzeb and turned him into a corpulent old man.



Source: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb

.

As you can see from the pictures above, there are significant differences between Aurangzeb and the Nizam. I am going to highlight those differences.

1. Miserly side: Aurangzeb's miserly side is a tad longer than Nizam's. Aurangzeb wins this one, but barely.

2. Philandering side: Aurangzeb's philandering side is tiny compared to the Nizam's. The Nizam wins this one by a lot.

3. Generous side: While the Nizam has a prominent generous side, Aurangzeb has him beat in this department. Sorry Nizam.

4. Treacherous side: Aurangzeb showed excellent potential in this department in his early years, but once he became top dog, he lost some of his treacherous edge. He was awesome at treachery when he fought his father and brothers. But the Nizam beats him easily with his support for Pakistan when India was at war with that ocuntry.

5. Deceitful side: There is no clear winner on this one. Both about the same.

6. Power-hungry side: The Nizam was no pushover when it came to hunger for power, but he can't hold a candle to Aurangzeb the Great in this department. Aurangzeb killed his own brothers to secure his hold on power. Nizam had no such luck; Aurangzeb wins.

7. Communal side: Aurangzeb has the stronger reputation for having a well-developed communal side, but that is only because the Nizam is not well-known outside Telangana. When evaluated on facts, it is clear that the Nizam has a much more elongated communal side than Aurangzeb. https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p150-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67029

panini press wrote:Here is another excellent Mughal painting of Aurangzeb the Great. Notice the elaborate headdress. Also, the Great Mughal liked his pearls.

.

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?

.

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.

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.

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.

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 Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kashi (Varanasi) 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.

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.

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. His treatment of Aurangzeb is highly communal. All secular people hang their heads in shame.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu temples. How factual is this accusation against a man who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur’an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (Qur’an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Rejecters) clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his stature, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

This is conclusive proof that Aurangzeb did not really destroy the temples he is accused of destroying. If he did destroy those temples, there is no way he would be considered a saintly emperor.

I was reviewing this thread and came across something that I haven't dotted in almost an entire day. Here it is!

---

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

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.