Re: Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:11 am

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.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:14 am

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.

Not true. Jaziya was not communal at all.

---

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 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 Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:17 am

This thread has crossed another milestone... it now spans 8 colorful and bold pages. It has already surpassed half the size of the Nizam thread, even though Rashmun has already run out of Nizam copy-pastes and is keeping that thread going with random posts about Aurangzeb's grandfather. Nizam, Aurangzeb is coming for you. He's the one who gave you fiefdom over Hyderabad, so you better watch out.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:23 am

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Let us consider the very first row where PP says that Aurangzeb appointed a hindu commander-in-chief. This is not true.

[Historian Babu Nagendranath] 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.

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

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64283

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:22 am

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
Inspired Bollywood to name movie after him	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Patronized paintings	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Inspired BW, a Hindu, to cook	No	Yes	Nizam
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.

Note 7: Added a line about paintings.

Note 8: Added a line about inspiring BW to cook. Revised comparison factor to 8 down from 10.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:25 am

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
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
Patronized paintings Yes No Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins Yes No Aurangzeb
Inspired BW, a Hindu, to cook No Yes Nizam
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.

Note 7: Added a line about paintings.

Note 8: Added a line about inspiring BW to cook. Revised comparison factor to 8 down from 10.

This table has grown with the increasing knowledge of his fans about Aurangzeb's accomplishments. The comparison factor -- "if Nizam is not-communal x 1, how not-communal is Aurangzeb based on the evidence in this table" -- has not kept pace with the ever-growing amount of information. I will develop a more robust weighting scheme to account for this. Watch this space as eagerly as you always do, fans of Aurangzeb!

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:33 am

was aurangazeb able to walk and chew gum at the same time? nizam was definitely capable of this.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:46 am

The time has come for me to take a "360 degree turn" on Aurangzeb and the Nizam. Rashmun's impeccable logic has made this inevitable. I used to believe that Aurangzeb was more not-communal than the Nizam. After my "360 degree turn", I now believe that Aurangzeb was more not-communal than the Nizam.

Why I would take such turns is beyond me.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:47 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:was aurangazeb able to walk and chew gum at the same time? nizam was definitely capable of this.

I wish to know this too. I am going to investigate this. Suffice it to say that if he did walk and chew gum at the same time, he would do it in a more not-communal way than the Nizam.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:50 am

In another thread...

Rashmun wrote:Why Charvaka keeps changing his views on certain people is beyond me. For instance, even though earlier he praised Jahangir, more lately he has taken a 360 degree turn and has become critical of Jahangir. It seems that his whimsical and fickle mindset do not permit him to hold consistent views about certain historical personalities.

Oops... I wonder what he thinks of my latest 360-degree turn on Aurangzeb and the Nizam!

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p350-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67467

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:52 am

Time for some dotting... brace yourselves, I will see you on the other side of 400.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:53 am

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 [u]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 Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:54 am

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 8 5829022881_1766c3b9a3

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 8 5829022881_1766c3b9a3

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 8 5829022903_8e6b67a158

---

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

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:55 am

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

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

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

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

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:56 am

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

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

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

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

---

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

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:57 am

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

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

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

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:57 am

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!

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:58 am

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 8 Captur20

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 8 Nizam-10

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

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:59 am

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
Inspired Bollywood to name movie after him	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Patronized paintings	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Issued firman ordering people to respect Hindu temples and brahmins	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Inspired BW, a Hindu, to cook	No	Yes	Nizam
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.

Note 7: Added a line about paintings.

Note 8: Added a line about inspiring BW to cook. Revised comparison factor to 8 down from 10.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:59 am

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.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:01 pm

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.

Not true. Jaziya was not communal at all.

---

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 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 Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:02 pm

It is important to cross-reference all evidence related to the table above into this thread as well. So here goes.

https://such.forumotion.com/t8518-aurangzeb-vs-nizam#64558

One last piece on the Nizams' destruction of Hindu temples.

From the book: Marathwada under the Nizams, 1724 to 1948, pages 186-187.

Several temples were either converted into mosques or destroyed completely, while some remains (sic) out of worship for years together. Mr. John Law observed in his book, "In vain I looked for modern Hindu temples, the ruin of old one I found... Mosques I saw everywhere, but when I asked where do Hindus worship I was shown ruined temples on hills..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=tjndiykddsIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:02 pm

More evidence of temples destroyed by the Nizam.

After the Marathas' disaster at Panipat, Nizam 'Ali invaded Maharashtra with about 60,000 troops, but he lost allies by destroying Hindu temples at Toka and was defeated near Puna in January 1762.

http://www.san.beck.org/2-10-Marathas1707-1800.html

https://such.forumotion.com/t8518-aurangzeb-vs-nizam#64556

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:03 pm

Rashmun wrote:Now the first part, that the Muslim invaders broke temples, has been mentioned in our history books, but the second part, which is of ten times longer duration, that the descendents of these invaders, who were local rulers used to foster communal harmony they used to give land grants for building Hindu temples, they celebrated and organized Hindu festivals, has been deliberately suppressed by the British from our history books, the whole game being divide and rule. Hindus and Muslims must be made to fight each other.

If you go on line and read the speech called 'History in the Service of Imperialism' a speech by Professor B. N. Pandey, Professor of History in Allahabad University, who later became Governor of Orissa, given in 1977 in the Rajya Sabha, the upper House of Parliament. Prof. Pandey has mentioned in great detail how the British policy was to make Hindus and Muslims inimical to each other.

For instance he [Professor B.N. Pandey] has mentioned that in 1928 when he was a Professor of History in Allahabad University some students came to him with a book written by one Professor Harprasad Shastri, Professor of Sanskrit of Calcutta University in which it was mentioned that Tipu Sultan told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam otherwise they will be killed, and those 3000 Brahmins committed suicide rather than becoming Muslims. On reading this Professor B. N. Pandey wrote to Professor Harprasad Shastri asking him on what basis have you written this? What is the source of your information? Prof. Harprasad Shastri wrote back that the source of information is the Mysore Gazetteer. Then Prof. Pandey wrote to Prof. Shrikantia, Professor of History in Mysore University asking him whether it is correct that in Mysore Gazetteer it is mentioned that Tipu Sultan told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam. Prof. Shrikantia wrote back that this is totally false, he had worked in this field and there is no such mention in the Mysore Gazetteer, rather the correct version was just the reverse, namely, that Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu Temples, he used to send grants to the Shankaracharya of Shringheri, etc.

Now, just imagine what mischief has been done. Deliberately our history books have been falsified so that the mind of a child at an impressionable age is poisoned so that he should start hating Muslims in India and in Pakistan he should start hating Hindus. The poison put in the mind of an impressionable age is very difficult to remove at a later age. All our history books have been falsified in this manner.

It is time we re-write our History books and show that in fact upto 1857 there was no communal problem at all in India. A composite culture in India had been developing. Hindus used to participate Eid and Muharram, and Muslims used to participate in Holi, Diwali etc.. There were some differences no doubt but they were becoming narrower. In 1857 the great Mutiny took place. Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. After suppressing that Mutiny it was decided by the British rulers that the only way to control this country to divide and rule. In other words, Hindus and Muslims must be made to fight each other. All communal riots start after 1857. The English Collector would secretly call the Hindu Pandit and give him money to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi and give him some money to speak against Hindus. A very beautiful racket was started in this way, and this resulted ultimately in the partition of 1947.

I am just telling you this to show that now the time has come when we must see through this game. I mean how long are you going to be taken for a ride. Are we fools that anybody can come and make fools out of us and make us fight each other.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-05/india/30477217_1_west-indies-immigrants-mauritius/8

Rashmun makes some good copy-paste points here. This explains his irrational hatred for Aurangzeb who was secular.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:05 pm

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

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:06 pm

panini press wrote:I may have been too hasty in conceding that Aurangzeb destroyed some temples. It looks like something similar to the Tipu Sultan story in large bold letters above happened to Aurangzeb also -- that's why people think he destroyed temples. In fact he did not destroy temples.

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:07 pm

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.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:07 pm

Rashmun wrote:Let us consider the very first row where PP says that Aurangzeb appointed a hindu commander-in-chief. This is not true.

[Historian Babu Nagendranath] 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.

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

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64283

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:07 pm

yikes! i am sorry i stepped into this thread without my 3D glasses. *brb*

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 8 545C

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:08 pm

Rashmun wrote:Was Aurangzeb's policy framed by hindus? no it was not.

[Historian Babu Nagendranath] Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal-minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus.

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

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64283

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:09 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Was Aurangzeb extolled by Guru Gobind Singh? Charvaka emphasizes the fact that a a few verses of Zafarnama written by Gobind Singh extoll Aurangzeb.
Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me that a few verses written by Guru Gobind Singh do extol Aurangzeb. The praise given him there is very high indeed. More than any praise you were able to find for the Nizam from anyone. Here an enemy of Aurangzeb was praising him so highly, but even friends of the Nizam are not as effusive in their praise of the Nizam!

.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:11 pm

but nizam traveled by plane to australia. aurangazeb did not. so nizam's transportation technology is superior. +1 for nizam.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:12 pm

panini press wrote:It is true that the Nizam was appointed by the Mughals. Soon after Aurangzeb's death, in fact. So how does the Nizam compare to Aurangzeb? See the table above. While the Nizam was clearly Not-Communal (TM) by virtue of being certified as such by Rashmun, he also seems to have fallen short of the Aurangzebian standard of being not-communal. Why did this happen? Why didn't the Nizam have his policy made by Hindus? Why wasn't his commander-in-chief Hindu? Why didn't Sikh gurus extol him? My theory is that the Nizam suffered an unfortunate loss of head at some time during his life, because of which he fell short of the Aurangzebian standard. He is close to, but not quite as not-communal as, Aurangzeb.

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:13 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:but nizam traveled by plane to australia. aurangazeb did not. so nizam's transportation technology is superior. +1 for nizam.

This much is true. This morning has been particularly good for Nizam... first BW, then airplanes. I will update the table soon.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:15 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 Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:16 pm

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb destroyed some hindu temples; the Nizam did not.

You are wrong, Nizam did destroy some Hindu temples.

---

After the Marathas' disaster at Panipat, Nizam 'Ali invaded Maharashtra with about 60,000 troops, but he lost allies by destroying Hindu temples at Toka and was defeated near Puna in January 1762.

http://www.san.beck.org/2-10-Marathas1707-1800.html

https://such.forumotion.com/t8518-aurangzeb-vs-nizam#64556

---

From the book: Marathwada under the Nizams, 1724 to 1948, pages 186-187.

Several temples were either converted into mosques or destroyed completely, while some remains (sic) out of worship for years together. Mr. John Law observed in his book, "In vain I looked for modern Hindu temples, the ruin of old one I found... Mosques I saw everywhere, but when I asked where do Hindus worship I was shown ruined temples on hills..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=tjndiykddsIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:17 pm

panini press wrote:I have some new, breaking news on Aurangzeb.

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 Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:18 pm

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

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

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

I posted this from the SikhiWiki:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:20 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 Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:20 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:yikes! i am sorry i stepped into this thread without my 3D glasses. *brb*

Come back with your 3D glasses and become a fan of Aurangzeb.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:22 pm

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

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:23 pm

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?

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:23 pm

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

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:24 pm

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

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:25 pm

I know the evidence is already overwhelming that Aurangzeb did not destroy temples, but what am I if not overwhelming in my evidentiary powers? Here is more conclusive proof that Aurangzeb was secular.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of history textbook, Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History), used in Bengal and published by the Hindustan Press, 10 Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta, for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

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

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:26 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 Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:27 pm

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

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

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

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:31 pm

panini press wrote: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.

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:31 pm

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.”

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:32 pm

panini press wrote:
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!

.

.

by Sponsored content