Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

Rishi wrote:The Sikh guru sold his soul.

Rashmun wrote:There is sufficient evidence to show that he did a lot of developmental activity in his state, he tried to introduce modern technology in his state, and that he was not wasteful with public funds. In other words, he was a good ruler.

Rashmun wrote:The Nizam seems to come off favorably when compared to any other contemporary king in terms of developmental activities carried out during his reign.

Rashmun wrote:After independence, the Nizam should have had the foresight to merge his state with India. But probably due to the poor advise he received from his foolish advisors he thought he might be able to make his state independent.

Rashmun wrote:It is important to note that the razakars also included hindus, but since hindus were in the majority in the Nizam's state their targets (those who wanted the Nizam's state to merge with India) were also frequently hindus.

Rashmun wrote:It could be said that the razakars were 'misguided patriots' providing we keep in mind that they were serving the interests of the state of hyderabad, for the preservation of the state of hyderabad.

Rashmun wrote:the reason the razakars could not possibly have been targeting only hindus is because many muslims had also joined the struggle to merge the state of hyderabad with India and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of the razakars.

Rashmun wrote:to those who oppose the Nizam unequivocally i would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb had bankrupted his treasury because of his ceaseless wars. In fact he died 'with his boots on'. So in fact he was wasteful with public funds; its just that he spent the funds on wars.

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka's argument is nonsensical because it is the Nizam's army which should be compared to Aurangzeb's army. Nizam's army never targeted any hindu (or muslim) who wanted to merge the state with India. Nizam did not have direct control over razakars. Furthermore, razakars included hindus.

Rashmun wrote:one will not dispute the fact that extending borders was a duty of a king in those times. the problem with aurangzeb was that he 'chewed off a lot more than he could swallow'. before his rule over conquered territories had stablized he was off conquering other territories. this was one reason why his kingdom collapsed after his death. (the other reason is that his successors were all weaklings.)

Rashmun wrote:but aurangzeb imposed jaziya (special tax on non-muslims). Sure, jaziya was not imposed on women, children, and the elderly

Rashmun wrote:if you would have been in the Nizam's position, even you might have been tempted to see if you could pull off independence for your state.

Rashmun wrote:it is interesting to note that the official andhra govt. website extolls the good deeds of the Nizam. What does this imply? It implies that Charvaka's view on the Nizam is not the mainstream view on the Nizams.

panini press wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t8873p50-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67664

panini press wrote: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.

panini press wrote:

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.

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

panini press wrote:

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.

panini press wrote: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

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

It should also be noted that his temple destruction policy was mainly directed at temples where political aspirations against him were being plotted, as well as [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.

panini press wrote: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/





---

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

panini press wrote: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

panini press wrote: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.

panini press wrote: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.

panini press wrote: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

panini press wrote: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

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.

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.

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.

Rashmun wrote:Aurangzeb is communal because he imposed jaziya.

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

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.

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:Time for some more pictures...

Aurangzeb on the peacock throne. Note that peacock is a Hindu motif. Aurangzeb's throne itself was secular, and he sits happily on it.

.

panini press wrote:Rashmun has run out of arguments why jaziya is communal. With that goes the claim of Aurangzeb being communal. He may be afraid of acknowledging this, but if Nizam is secular, Aurangzeb is certainly secular.