Re: Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:33 pm

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:34 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Isn't it dotting time?

There's a lot of good content that needed to be brought up to date. Dotting will be performed as necessary in future.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i am only claiming that eraly cannot be considered an authority on mughal india because he does not know persian. ... ~~all~~ a clear majority of 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.
that should have been 'clear majority' instead of 'all'.

Interesting... that must mean you do speak, read and write Farsi. Good for you.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:41 pm

Article quoted by Rashmun wrote:Today, everyone is on the fast track and very few stop to remember the last Nizam

This indicates that the Nizam is extremely popular today, and that people who suggest otherwise are out of the mainstream. In mainstream public opinion, Nizam is more important than any other historical figure.

The good news is, by that measure Aurangzeb is now ahead.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:47 pm

[quote="Propagandhi711"]

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.

Good question.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:47 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.

Good question.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:49 pm

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.

.

by Idéfix Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:52 pm

I am now tired of Aurangzeb and his great antics. Now that he has surpassed Nizam in greatness, I shall rest a little. I am sure Rashmun will want to continue to post inanities about Nizam and his various sycophants. I will respond to them at the appropriate time. In the meanwhile, enjoy the relative calm in these parts over the next few days. I suspect Nizam may pull ahead of Aurangzeb in the meanwhile, but not to worry; as I have shown in the last few days, I know the science and the art of dotting.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:21 am

Ok. Just one small koschen (to add at least two more posts to this epic thread): How did air travel enter the comparison chart?

by Idéfix Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:39 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Ok. Just one small koschen (to add at least two more posts to this epic thread): How did air travel enter the comparison chart?

Max pointed out that Nizam flew to Australia and therefore had the superior transportation technology. To be fair to Nizam, I gladly incorporated it into the side-by-side comparison. As I have said all along, I am happy to acknowledge Nizam's positives, as long as it is done in proportion to the other sides of his remarkable personality.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:43 am

panini press wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Ok. Just one small koschen (to add at least two more posts to this epic thread): How did air travel enter the comparison chart?
Max pointed out that Nizam flew to Australia and therefore had the superior transportation technology. To be fair to Nizam, I gladly incorporated it into the side-by-side comparison. As I have said all along, I am happy to acknowledge Nizam's positives, as long as it is done in proportion to the other sides of his remarkable personality.

Oh ok. But in the interests of maintaining the integrity of the comparison chart, I urge you to drop this because (a) merely talking about air travel without further description of the Hinduness / sufiness of that act doesn't show if the Nizam was more or less communal and (b) Aurangzeb had no access to this modern technology, unfairly handicapping him in a comparison on this criterion.

by bw Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:02 am

charvaka and rashmun,

question:
aurangabad is named after aurangzeb, i believe. is there a city named after the nizam, whatever his real name was?

by Idéfix Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:06 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panini press wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Ok. Just one small koschen (to add at least two more posts to this epic thread): How did air travel enter the comparison chart?
Max pointed out that Nizam flew to Australia and therefore had the superior transportation technology. To be fair to Nizam, I gladly incorporated it into the side-by-side comparison. As I have said all along, I am happy to acknowledge Nizam's positives, as long as it is done in proportion to the other sides of his remarkable personality.

Oh ok. But in the interests of maintaining the integrity of the comparison chart, I urge you to drop this because (a) merely talking about air travel without further description of the Hinduness / sufiness of that act doesn't show if the Nizam was more or less communal and (b) Aurangzeb had no access to this modern technology, unfairly handicapping him in a comparison on this criterion.

Good points. I will make the suggested update next time the comparison chart is revised.

by Idéfix Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:10 am

bw wrote:charvaka and rashmun,

question:
aurangabad is named after aurangzeb, i believe. is there a city named after the nizam, whatever his real name was?

Correct, Aurangabad is named after the Great Mughal. I have visited it as well, on my way to Ajanta and Ellora. Aurangzeb's tomb in Khuldabad is not far from Aurangabad either. There is a town called Nizamabad in AP. There is also a town called Osmanabad in Maharashtra, but I am not sure if it is named for the last Nizam. There is a putative country named after him -- Osmanistan, along the lines of Pakistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanistan

by Idéfix Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:11 am

BTW, you said "whatever his name was." Please consult the mental map posted on several pages of this thread for his full name. By convention, the map is posted near the top of most recent pages.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:55 am

panini press wrote:
bw wrote:charvaka and rashmun,

question:
aurangabad is named after aurangzeb, i believe. is there a city named after the nizam, whatever his real name was?
Correct, Aurangabad is named after the Great Mughal. I have visited it as well, on my way to Ajanta and Ellora. Aurangzeb's tomb in Khuldabad is not far from Aurangabad either. There is a town called Nizamabad in AP. There is also a town called Osmanabad in Maharashtra, but I am not sure if it is named for the last Nizam. There is a putative country named after him -- Osmanistan, along the lines of Pakistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanistan

So let's examine how this breaks down in terms of the scores.

Aurangabad is named personally after Aurangzeb whereas Nizamabad is named after the generic title of the Nizam (if at all). It could even be named after a sufi pir (i.e. equal to a Hindu mystic) called Nizamuddin. Aurangzeb scores 1:0. But if Osmanabad turns out to be named after Nizam Osman Ali, that would level the score 1:1.

Aurangzeb scores 1:0 because PP, a Hindu, has visited the town named after him. In case PP has also visited Osmanabad (and it turns out Osmanabad was named after Nizam Osman Ali), then the Nizam would level the score 1:1.

More details awaited before the final verdict.

by Idéfix Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:37 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panini press wrote:
bw wrote:charvaka and rashmun,

question:
aurangabad is named after aurangzeb, i believe. is there a city named after the nizam, whatever his real name was?
Correct, Aurangabad is named after the Great Mughal. I have visited it as well, on my way to Ajanta and Ellora. Aurangzeb's tomb in Khuldabad is not far from Aurangabad either. There is a town called Nizamabad in AP. There is also a town called Osmanabad in Maharashtra, but I am not sure if it is named for the last Nizam. There is a putative country named after him -- Osmanistan, along the lines of Pakistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanistan

So let's examine how this breaks down in terms of the scores.

Aurangabad is named personally after Aurangzeb whereas Nizamabad is named after the generic title of the Nizam (if at all). It could even be named after a sufi pir (i.e. equal to a Hindu mystic) called Nizamuddin. Aurangzeb scores 1:0. But if Osmanabad turns out to be named after Nizam Osman Ali, that would level the score 1:1.

Aurangzeb scores 1:0 because PP, a Hindu, has visited the town named after him. In case PP has also visited Osmanabad (and it turns out Osmanabad was named after Nizam Osman Ali), then the Nizam would level the score 1:1.

More details awaited before the final verdict.

Rashmun claims that Osmanabad is named for Osman Ali, so that's 1:1. I do wonder what the town was called before it was renamed in the 20th century. Unfortunately for Nizam, I have not visited Osmanabad, so that may give Aurangzeb another win here. Nizam seems to be losing some ground, he needs to fight back hard.

by Guest Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:32 pm

Even the history of Aurangzeb, you say, is badly in need of rewriting.
Absolutely. Let’s start with his reputation for temple destruction. The temples that he destroyed were not those associated with enemy kings, but with Rajput individuals who were formerly loyal and then become rebellious. Aurangzeb also built more temples in Bengal than any other Mughal ruler.

http://www.tehelka.com/its-a-myth-that-muslim-rulers-destroyed-thousands-of-temples/?singlepage=1

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:16 am

Rashmun wrote:Even the history of Aurangzeb, you say, is badly in need of rewriting.
Absolutely. Let’s start with his reputation for temple destruction. The temples that he destroyed were not those associated with enemy kings, but with Rajput individuals who were formerly loyal and then become rebellious. Aurangzeb also built more temples in Bengal than any other Mughal ruler.

http://www.tehelka.com/its-a-myth-that-muslim-rulers-destroyed-thousands-of-temples/?singlepage=1

---
When I was the Chairman of the Allahabad Municipality I came across the dispute regarding the property of the Someshwar Nath Mahadev mandir. There were two rival claims, one of which prepared a file of Farmans issued, by Emperor Aurangzeb which confirmed the issue of a Jagir for the temple. I was shocked to find this reference regarding a man who is supposed to have been a destroyer of temples. At first I was inclined to believe that these (Farmans) were forgeries.

However, before I reached a definite conclusion, I thought it to be in order to consult Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a renowned scholar of Persian language. Sir Sapru studied the Jagdambri Shiv Mandir documents and again found Farmans of Aurangzeb which bestowed a Jagir on this temple. A new Aurangzeb was unveiled before me and through further research and investigation, I discovered many more Farmans of like nature with regard to Mahakaleswar temple in Ujjain, Balaji Temple in Chitrakoot, Amparand Temple in Gauhati, Shatranjay Jain Temple and various Gurdwaras. These Farmans were issued between the year 1656 and 1686. [Aurangzeb's father Emperor Shah Jahan is famous for having built the Taj Mahal, considered as one of the wonders of the world]....

The story regarding demolition of Vishwanath temple is that while Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if a halt is made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed.

The Ranis took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. All the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kachh. When Aurangzeb came to know of it, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately, they found that the Statue of Ganesh which was fixed in the wall was a movable one. When the statue was moved a flight of stairs led to the basement. To their horror, they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath's seat. The Hindu Rajas expressed their vociferous protests. They demanded justice. Aurangzeb ordered that Lord vishawanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant be arrested and punished.

Dr Pattabhi Sitaramaiah, in his famous book 'The Feathers and the Stones' has narrated this fact based on documentary evidence. Dr. P. L. Gupta, former Curator of Patna Museum has also narrated this incident ...

[Excerpted from Prof B. N. Pande's speech in the Indian Upper House of Parliament, the Rajya Sabha, made on 29 July 1977. At the time of the publication of this article in Impact International (1987), Dr Pande was Governor of the Indian state of Orrisa. Dr. Pande died in New Delhi on June 1, 1998.]

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:28 pm

Farman are the "Orders" from a king to be obeyed. see below: But Noted scholar & former governor of Orissa Mr. B.N.Pandey, wrote in his book "Islam & Indian Culture" about the emperor Aurangzeb on page 41.

"When I was the chairman of the Allahabad municipality (1948-53), a case of mutation (dakhil kharij) came up for my consideration. It was a dispute over the property dedicated to the temple of Someshwar Nath Mahadev.after the death of the mahant, there were two claimants for the property. One of the claimants file some documents which were in the possession of the family. The documents were the Farmans (orders) issued by emperor Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb conferred a jagir and a cash gift on the temple. I felt puzzled. I thought that the Farmans were fake. I was wondering how Aurangzeb, who was known for the demolition of the temples, could confer a jagir on a temple with the words that "the jagir was being conferred for the puja and bhog of the deity".

How could Aurangzeb, who identifies himself with idolatry? I felt sure that the documents were not genuine. But before coming to any conclusion, I thought it proper to take the opinion of Dr. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who was a great scholar of Persian and Arabic. I laid the documents before him and asked for his opinion. After examining the documents, Dr. Sapru said that these Farmans ofAurangzeb were genuine. Then he asked his munshi to bring the file of the case of Jangum Badi Shiva temple of Varansi, of which several appeals were pending in the Allahabad high court for the past 15 years. The mahant of the jangum badi shiva temple was also in possession of various other Farmans of Aurangzeb granting jagir to the temple. It was a new image of Aurangzeb appeared before me. I was very much surprised.

As advised by Dr. Sapru, I sent letters to the mahant of various important temples of India requesting them to send me Photostat copies, if they are in the possession of the Farmans of Aurangzeb, granting them jagir for their temples. Another big surprise was in store for me. I received copies of Farmans of Aurangzeb from the great temples of mahakaleshwara, Ujjain, balaji temple, chitrakut, Umanand temple, Gauhati and the Jain temple of Shatrunjai and other temples and gurudwaras scattered over Northern India. These Farmans were issued from 1065AH (1659) to 1091AH (1685). Though these are only a few instances of Aurangzeb generous attitude towards Hindus and their temples, they are enough to show that what the historians have written about him was biased and is only one side of the picture. India is a vast land with thousands of temples scattered all over. If proper research is made, I am confident; many more instances would come to light which will show Aurangzeb's benevolent treatment of non-Muslims." Singhal, Damodar Prasad (2003). A History of the Indian People, Cosmo (Publications, India); New Ed edition. ISBN 8170200148.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Farman_issued_by_aurangzeb

by Propagandhi711 Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:09 pm

in other news, douchemun continues to offer his backside for the enjoyment of any bearded mughal, dead or alive

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:44 pm

I am intrigued by the fact that a Lord Venkateswara ( Balaji) temple was built by Aurangzeb at Chitrakoot which is a town on the border of UP and MP. I don't buy the mythological nonsense weaves around why he got this temple built. ( There is no dispute about the fact that he did build this temple.)

But it is also true that Aurangzeb destroyed some or perhaps several Hindu temples including the one on the banks of the Ganges at Benaras.

These actions of Aurangzeb seem contradictory and need to be studied in more detail.

by Guest Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:16 pm

On his twitter feed eminent journalist Shekhar Gupta has given the link to a photograph of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's Farman ( missive/order) with Hindi and English translations kept beside the original Farman which is in persian. The Farman states that no Hindu temples are to be demolished and that Brahmins who are looking after the temples are not to be harassed.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com