Re: Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:03 pm

Mistakes Nehru Made

In terms of importance and impact, consider the following mistakes that Jawaharlal Nehru made, and rank order them from most significant / impactful to least. Here is my own attempt at the ordering. Reasonable people may disagree.

1. Take Kashmir to the UN
2. Ignore the Chinese buildup on the northern border while believing in bhai-bhai
3. Appoint Nizam as raj-pramukh before the constitution was drafted (like all other Indian princelings were appointed in their respective princely states).

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:17 pm

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 16 Captur20

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 16 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/t8491p400-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67528

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:19 pm

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 12.

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
Was a sufi (i.e. closer to Hindu than to Muslim)	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
Spent last days as ruler regretting sins, not betraying India	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Inspired Bollywood to name movie after him	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Patronized paintings	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Is at least 3/8ths Hindu	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
Traveled by airplane	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.

Note 9: Added air travel line. New method for computing comparison factor: (number of items for Aurangzeb - number of items for Nizam) * 2 - number of items where they are the same. Applying this highly scientific method, we get: (11-2)*2 - 6 = 12.

Note 10: Added line for sufism.

Note 11: Added line for being at least 3/8ths Hindu.

Note 12: Added line about last days as ruler.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:20 pm

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.

He does not. The Mysore and Travancore kings were far ahead of the Nizam in terms of developmental activities and how they ruled their kingdoms. They did not enrich themselves at the expense of their poor subjects to quite the same extent as the Nizam did.

Forget about comparisons with contemporary kings; the Nizam fares poorly even when you compare him to despots like Aurangzeb. To wit: https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p500-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67739

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:20 pm

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.

To those who oppose Aurangzeb unequivocally, I would like to say that they should cease to see him in black and white terms.

Also, I do not oppose the Nizam unequivocally. In my chart of the Nizam's mental map, I clearly acknowledge -- and highlight in red -- his generous side in appropriate proportion to the other sides of his character.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:20 pm

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.

The reason Aurangzeb could not possibly have been targeting only Hindus is because many Muslims also were opposed to the Mughal empire and it is inevitable that these would have become targets of Aurangzeb.

In fact, Aurangzeb attacked the Muslim state of Golconda and conquered it through treachery. It is as a result of that treacherous conquest that the Nizams came to rule Hyderabad in the first place!

This makes Aurangzeb secular.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:21 pm

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.

Razakars included members of the Nizam's (hahaha) army. The Nizam's army actively participated in the attacks on villages. As the famous song goes, "pOlIusu miltri renDu balavantulAnukOni, nuvvu pallelokostivi koDuko naizAmu sarkarODA" -- you thought your police and military were strong and came into our villages. Later the song says, "nI miltri pAripoyerO" -- your army ran away.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:21 pm

Rashmun wrote:freemasons expelled anders from their organization after he went berserk. the man was mentally ill. do not compare him to Nizam.

Anders went berserk. Nizam only lost his head. There is no comparison.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:23 pm

Here is another piece of information. Did you know that Aurangzeb was at least 3/8ths Hindu? Nizam was not 3/8ths Hindu. Another way in which Aurangzeb is more secular. Aurangzeb's great-grandmother and grandmother on his father's side were both Hindu Rajputs, which made his father Shah Jahan 3/4ths Hindu. Therefore, Aurangzeb is more Hindu than the Nizam.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:23 pm

The latest argument for the Nizam being a "liberal" is that he was friends with a guy who was a Hindu, but for political expediency had to claim to be a sufi. The idea is that sufism is closer to Hinduism than it is to Islam, so being frends with such a guy makes the Nizam a "liberal."

Now, brace yourself for the big comparison. In contrast with the Nizam, who was merely friends with a guy who wasn't quite a sufi but claimed to be one, Aurangzeb himself was a sufi.

---

http://www.wichaar.com/news/315/ARTICLE/27481/2011-09-09.html

Aurangzeb was a Sufi and followed the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi method of Sufism. He was a direct disciple of Khwaja Muhammad Masoom, the third son and successor of the founder of Mujaddidi order Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi. His letters to his shaykh and the replies from him show that he was highly devoted to him and followed him in every matter of his life and rule.
Let that information sink in. Aurangzeb was more of a Hindu than he was a Muslim. Think about it.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:24 pm

Rashmun has just clarified that Indian sufism is a sect of Hinduism. This is good information for Aurangzeb.

Rashmun wrote: in my opinion Indian sufism should be considered a hindu sect.

This means that Aurangzeb was a Hindu.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:24 pm

The "refined version" of the above is that Aurangzeb had no religion. Can anyone possibly be more secular than Aurangzeb? Even Akbar had a religion, called din-i-ilahi. Aurangzeb, by being a sufi, at a refined level, had no religion!

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:25 pm

Another aspect of the "Refined Version" is that Aurangzeb is indistinguishable from Hindu mystics.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:25 pm

It is important to note that after his death, Aurangzeb was buried at a Sufi (i.e. Hindu in crude version, non-religious in refined version) shrine.

It is also important to note that Aurangzeb is held in very high esteem by some Indians, more than 300 years after his death.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:26 pm

His Exalted Highness* Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad, the sovereign ruler -- under Pax Britannica -- of a territory larger than England, Wales and Scotland combined. In 1947, the Nizam, the seventh of his dynasty was the world's richest man and most of his subjects were among the world's poorest men and women. He had amassed indecent amounts of wealth, to the extent that Indian National Congress intellectuals found it difficult to support him -- although INC was the original organization of the bourgeoisie, and was then led by a rich Allahabadi whose great-grandfather was the very first vakIl (lawyer) of the East India Company at the Mughal court in Delhi (yes, I am talking about the ancestors of the venerable Jawaharlal Nehru for whom I have a great deal of respect).

When the time of reckoning came on August 15, 1947, Mir Osman Ali Khan Pasha was clear in what he wanted. He wanted to leave a gaping hole in the middle of India. He wanted independence, or he wanted to join Pakistan. He certainly did not want to join the Hindu-dominated Indian Union. On the very last day of his rule over Telangana, when the Indian army was less than 12 hours away from the city of Hyderabad, he sent instructions to his bank in London to transfer money from his government's account to that of Pakistan. Such was the loyalty of this "good king" to India or the people he ruled over -- the people who had turned him into the world's richest man while they themselves were among the world's poorest.

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 16 Small

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 16 Small

Rashmun supports the pro-Pakistan king who gave the money of Indian peasants away to the government of Pakistan and wanted to leave India with a big hole in its middle. And he has the audacity to style himself as an Indian "nationalist." The Nizam was anything but an Indian nationalist, but Rashmun goes out of his way to defend this treacherous tyrant. If anything, the Nizam's enemies were the Indian nationalists, who forged an India that includes the heart of the Deccan. Indians like Rashmun wouldn't be able to talk about Dakhni if the Dakhan (anglicized as the Deccan) wasn't part of India as the Nizam wanted in his day-dreams, but for the efforts of the ordinary and brave people of Telangana, including my own ancestors who fought for its liberation from the tyrant. The Nizam was a much worse regionalist than Kayal Vizhi when it came to trying to fracture India, but Rashmun merrily supports him. Why is this? Rashmun, why do you support treacherous kings who wanted to disrupt the unity and integrity of India?

* Progressive students of the Nizam College, including my high-school headmaster, used to call the Nizam "His Exhausted Highness." Referring to the Nizam thusly on campus resulted in students being expelled, imprisoned and tortured. Such was the state of civil liberties in the state run by HEH the Nizam.

PS: Thanks to Max for posting the article from which I have pulled the picture above.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:27 pm

panini press wrote:
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.
This proves my point about Aurangzeb's legacy.

Aurangzeb's name would not have evoked a higher-resolution, higher-color-density, sharper-focus, better-exposed image of somber grandeur than that of Akbar if he would not have been more secular and awesome in general than Akbar.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:should Charvaka follow Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel's lead and forgive the Nizam for his mistake as well?

Should Rashmun stop his advocacy of treacherous kings who betrayed India? Or should be continue to advocate for kooks? Should there be a poll on this topic? Is it possible to avert the fiscal cliff? Eager minds want to know.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, did Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel and others make a mistake when they appointed the Nizam Governor (Raj Pramukh) of his state?

Yes. Great men like Nizam, Rashmun and Anders all made mistakes. Also, Akbar and Jahangir. So it is no wonder that Nehru and Patel made a mistake with this one.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:36 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 Propagandhi711 Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:36 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:should Charvaka follow Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel's lead and forgive the Nizam for his mistake as well?
Should Rashmun stop his advocacy of treacherous kings who betrayed India? Or should be continue to advocate for kooks? Should there be a poll on this topic? Is it possible to avert the fiscal cliff? Eager minds want to know.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:36 pm

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

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 16 5829022881_1766c3b9a3

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 16 5829022881_1766c3b9a3

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 16 5829022903_8e6b67a158

---

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

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:37 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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:38 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:should Charvaka follow Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel's lead and forgive the Nizam for his mistake as well?
Should Rashmun stop his advocacy of treacherous kings who betrayed India? Or should be continue to advocate for kooks? Should there be a poll on this topic? Is it possible to avert the fiscal cliff? Eager minds want to know.

.

Thank you. That's a better formatting scheme for sure. Will keep this in mind for the future.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:41 pm

I think the good people at The Hindu are not perfect either. They also made some mistakes. Just like Nizam, Rashmun, Anders, Akbar and Jahangir did in their earlier days. But the good news is, they can follow Aurangzeb's example and repent in old age. Or if they so choose, they can follow Nizam's example and not repent in old age. Either way, they can write cheesy quasi-poetry like both Nizam and Aurangzeb, to express their fine feelings.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:46 pm

does Rashmun's hatred for Aurangzeb stem from the fact that his ancestors were roughed up by Aurangzeb's forces in the period prior to Aurangzeb's death? We know that Aurangzeb was secular, so why did his forces rough up his ancestors? History tells us that Aurangzeb's jaziya only targeted draft-dodgers who needed to pay a war tax to escape their patriotic duty of fighting for king and country. So the real question is: did Rashmun's ancestors lack patriotism to defend their country? I am not suggesting one way or the other, but I wish to know what really happened here.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:one realizes that Charvaka's view on the Nizam is not the mainstream view when one finds that the official website of the state of Andhra Pradesh extolls the Nizam .

AP government also makes mistakes. Like the growing list of eminent personalities who made mistakes (e.g. Nizam, Aurangzeb, Akbar, Jahangir, Anders, Rashmun), the AP government has made many mistakes. One of them is mentioning the Nizam without condemning him on its website (assuming that Rashmun isn't lying as he often does).

by Hellsangel Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:51 pm

Can we please have a list of persons who made mistakes, soon?

In tabular form with early mistakes. late mistakes, etc

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:55 pm

It is a growing list. Thus far, includes so far:

Mughals: Akbar, Jahangir, Aurangzeb
Non-Mughal important people: Nizam, Rashmun
Non-Mughal non-important people: Nehru, Patel, government of Andhra Pradesh
Other assorted personalities: Anders Breivik (sp?)

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:56 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.”

---

If textbooks published by the government attach more importance to Aurangzeb than to Akbar, Rashmun should realize that his antagonism to Aurangzeb puts him on the lunatic fringe.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:59 pm

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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:00 pm

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.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:01 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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:10 pm

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.”

---

If textbooks published by the government attach more importance to Aurangzeb than to Akbar, Rashmun should realize that his antagonism to Aurangzeb puts him on the lunatic fringe.

.

by Hellsangel Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:12 pm

Now leading by 50 posts! But 4000 views short.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:13 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Now leading by 50 posts! But 4000 views short.

The views will take some time to catch up. That thread is months older.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:15 pm

panini press wrote:
FluteHolder wrote:This is getting so interesting! Our history books needs to be thrown out and all students should follow this forum to know history on nizam/aurangzeb/etc etc.
LOL... this forum is already the definitive source for the long-standing links between Khariboli and Mandarin. Next it will be the definitive source on the generous sides of Nizam and Aurangzeb. If you don't believe me, look here...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nizam+generous
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aurangzeb+generous

Aurangzeb is in second place, but together we can fix that!

I am happy to report that this issue with the Aurangzeb search has been fixed by Google. Google now officially recognizes that Aurangzeb is generous. It also directs people to this thread.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aurangzeb+generous

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:16 pm

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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:17 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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:18 pm

panini press wrote:The following chart shows the progress of the generous sides of Aurangzeb and Nizam in terms of number of posts on their threads. When do you think Aurangzeb will surpass the Nizam?

If you said November 26, 2012, you would have been right. This thread has now surpassed the Nizam's thread.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:19 pm

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 Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:20 pm

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

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

---

Yes, Aurangzeb was secular, just like the Nizam.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:21 pm

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

Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books - Page 16 Captur19

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

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:22 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 Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:24 pm

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

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:26 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:28 pm

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.

Rashmun congratulations on reading the autobiography of the grandfather of the illustrious Aurangzeb the Great. This gives you authority on Mughal India. I presume you can read and write Farsi. If you can't, never mind, move the goalpost at a later date and that will be that.

PS: When you said all above, I am sure you didn't mean all in the traditional, almost old-fashioned sense of the word. You meant to automatically exclude the writings of contemporary European observers like one Sir Thomas Roe. It is quite obvious, really.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:29 pm

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. Now, let us turn to another vicious canard that the descendants of the people he roughed up have sought to perpetuate: the idea that Aurangzeb was against music and the arts.

---

The picture of Aurangzeb built up in the story of the protest song is predicated on the widespread European view of him as a caricature villain, and the wishful thinking inspired by European imperial ambitions.

However, it also reﬂects Manucci’s personal antagonism towards Aurangzeb, and his difﬁculty in reconciling his vision of an intolerant despot with widespread evidence of musical activity in the ﬁrst ten regnal years. All Manucci’s musical stories of this period are designed to prove Aurangzeb’s puritanical tendencies; for example, his anecdote about a
sarangi smuggling ring supplying Shah Jahan’s prison behind Aurangzeb’s supposedly censorious back.

Manucci’s ‘proof’ of long-standing antagonism towards music in this case is demonstrably false. Francois Bernier, a respected member of the court until 1668, noted that Shah Jahan continued to maintain all his ‘singing and dancing women’ by Aurangzeb’s express permission, in all likelihood until his death in 1666.

In other words, the truthfulness of Manucci’s anecdotes is entirely secondary to the point he is trying to make: despite the evidence, Manucci cannot escape his rhetorical need to portray Aurangzeb as an ancient enemy of Indian culture. On the contrary, prior to the burial incident, there is little evidence of imperial hostility towards music outside the pages of Manucci’s journal.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81299631/Did-Aurangzeb-Ban-Music

---

To summarize: Aurangzeb's portrayal as a bad guy is due to European imperialism and it has no basis in fact. Descendants of the people who got roughed up a little, like Rashmun, spread these lies about Aurangzeb to make him seem like a bad guy, when he is in fact a generous, secular, artistic, book-loving, good guy.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:30 pm

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

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

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

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

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:31 pm

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

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

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

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

by Hellsangel Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:33 pm

Isn't it dotting time?

by Sponsored content