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)

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

panini press wrote: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?

panini press wrote: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!

panini press 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.

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.

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: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.”

Rashmun wrote:in another thread Charvaka has been posting paintings of Aurangzeb. Just compare them to the Jahangiri paintings and you will find the Aurangzebi paintings to be inferior in comparison. Why is this so?

Propagandhi711 wrote:photo of a dog sleeping in the sun:

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

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

panini press wrote:

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

.

panini press wrote:

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:

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?

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

panini press wrote:Aurangzeb had a love for books, as this article indicates.

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


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

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

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

panini press wrote:

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

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

panini press wrote:

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

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

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

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:

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

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

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

panini press wrote:

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

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

panini press wrote:

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

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

panini press wrote:Rashmun, I am really happy to note that you are googling for evidence of Sikh leaders praising the Nizam. I do hope you find something as effusive as Guru Gobind Singh's praise of Aurangzeb. Good luck to you and the Nizam!

Rashmun wrote:i am only claiming that eraly cannot be considered an authority on mughal india because he does not know persian. ... all the contemporary historical accounts of this period of indian history are in persian.