On Aurangzeb, Kashi Vishwanath, Lies and Half-Truths

*** COMMENT COMBINED ***

Of course Aurangzeb gave grants to temples and also destroyed them. Now I can not give proofs. Neither online nor via snailmail or even personally coz the farmans are archived. I am really sorry. I have not seen them even. But neither have you seen any of that stuff.

Now if you have faith in internet then just type ‘ aurangzeb temple grants’ and check the results. You will find out that he did have grants for Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple in Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Banaras, and Umanand temple in Gauhati. As you might also notice that at least these 3 are Shaiva temples and not Vaishnav, unlike the Keshav Rai and company that he destroyed. One such page (whose ‘history’ I dont subscribe to, but it still mentions this is http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Mughals/Aurang2.html).

If you have a little faith in ‘lefty secular’ (Richard Eaton etc) types then you could check Eaton’s book ‘Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States’, which I havent read but I am presuming would detail more such instances. If you want to indulge in polemics then let me tell you again that he both built and destroyed temples. there is enough evidence for both.

***

and one more thing. Au… had the maximum number of Hindu mansabdars under him. More than even the ’secular’ Akbar. How might you explain that ?

Reference

M Athar Ali, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb.

Of course he is a Muslim. But I can bet my life that he was not lying.

Praada Verna,

You are not clear in what you are saying.

Dear Sir,
As Shri. Gautier states, let us face the “hHISTORY”. Let us not bury it to suit the whims and fancies of a few.
If Aurangazeb is what he is as what Shri. Gautier states or if he the truth of the Kashi Viswanath temple is as per what the tmmk LEADER SAYS LET US FACE IT.AND let us accept it.
Let us not hide truth just to get a few brownie points or a few beers and drinks from a society which tries to put “Bharatiys History” as “NO HISTORY AT ALL”!
Just as we are willing to look at a newer side of the “supposed to be discriminatory caste system’ as non existing in true “VEDIC SOCIETY” let us get a new side to History and truth and face it. Let us not brush it under the carpet for a future generation to suffer any sort of indignities.
Shri’ Gautier states that he has got the info directly from the horses mouth, the writings of Aurangazeb itself. Let us ascertain where the other historical records of the Tmmk leader is available and accept the truth “WHATEVER IT MAY BE”!
Regards.
vck

@ vikas: What is your point re. killing 100,000 Muslims and 90,000 Hindus?

I am also concerned that you like to quote sources/books without bothering to read them yourself (as in Richard Eaton’s book above).

If you did actually check the link in my comment above, you would have read this paragraph:

“Thus, we thought we should get at the root of the matter. History (like journalism) is about documentation and first-hand experience. We decided to show Aurangzeb according to his own documents. There are an incredible number of farhans, original edicts of Aurangzeb hand-written in Persian, in India’s museums, particularly in Rajasthan, such as the Bikaner archives. It was not always easy to scan them, we encountered resistance, sometimes downright hostility and we had to go once to the chief minister to get permission. Indeed, the director of Bikaner archives told us that in 50 years we were the first ones asking for the farmans dealing with Aurangzeb’s destructive deeds…”

These edicts and firmans were all original and straight “from the horse’s mouth” – as you say.

The exhibition paintings themselves were reproductions of these edicts – that does not invalidate them.

@ Vikas: First of all, thank you for your comment because it forced me to go and do some original research (there is nothing better than that to get the grey cells working again!)

1. You say: “As far as the FACT exhibition is concerned it is in trouble because it does not show the firmans but the paintings…”

Not quite true. Here is what I found. From: http://www.fact-india.com/Aurangazeb.php

“…One of the main objectives of Aurangzeb’s policy was to demolish Hindu temples. When he ordered (13th October 1666)removal of the carved railing, which Prince Dara Shukoh had presented to Keshava Rai temple at Mathura, he had observed ‘In the religionof theMusalmans it is improper even to look at a temple’, and that it was totally unbecoming of a Muslim to act like Dara Shukoh (Exhibit No.6, Akhbarat, 13th October 1666). This was followed by destruction of the famous Kalka temple in Delhi (Exhibit No.6, 7, 8, Akhbarat, 3rd and 12th September 1667).

In 1669, shortly after the death of Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a general order was issued (9th April 1669) for the demolition of temples and established schools of the Hindus throughout the empire and banning public worship (Exhibit Nos.9 & 10). Soon after this the great temple of Keshava Rai was destroyed (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Exhibit No.12) and in its place a lofty mosque was erected. The idols, the author of Maasir-i-Alamgiri informs, were carried to Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by Begum Sahiba in order to be continually trodden upon, and the name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad.

This was followed by Aurangzeb’s order to demolish the highly venerated temple of Vishwanath at Banaras (Persian text, Exhibit No.11), Keshava Rai temple (Jan.-Feb. 1670) (Persian Text, exhibit No.12 and Painting, Exhibit No.13), and of Somanatha (Exhibit No.14).To save the idol of Shri Nathji from being desecrated, the Gosain carried it to Rajputana, where Maharana Raj Singh received it formally at Sihad village, assuring the priest that Aurangzeb would have to trample over the bodies of one lakh of his brave Rajputs, before he couldeven touch the idol (Exhibit No.15)

Aurangzeb’s zeal for temple destruction became much more intense during war conditions. The opportunity to earn religious merit by demolishing hundreds of temples soon came to him in 1679 when, after the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in the Kabul Subah, he tried to eliminate the Rathors of Marwar as a political power in Rajputana. But Maharana Raj Singh of Mewar, in line with the great traditions of his House, came out in open support of the Rathors.. This led to war with both Mewar and Marwar during which the temples built on the bank of Rana’s lake were destroyed by his orders (Exhibit No.23, Akhbarat 23rd December 1679) and also about three hundred other temples in the environs of Udaipur. (Exhibit No.25, Text), including the famous Jagannath Rai temple built at a great cost in front of the Maharana’s palace which was bravely defended by a handful of Rajputs (Exhibit Nos.20, 21).

Not only this, when Aurangzeb visited Chittor to have a view of the famous fort, he ordered the demolition of 63 temples there which included some of the finest temples of Kumbha’s time (Exhibit No.22). From Marwar (in Western Rajasthan) alone were brought several cart-loads of idols which, as per Aurangzeb’s orders, were cast in the yard of the Court and under the steps of Jama Masjid (Exhibit No.19). Such uncivilized and arrogant conduct of the Mughal Emperor alienated Hindus for ever, though they continued to be tolerant towards his creed.

In June 1681, orders, in a laconic two-liner, were given for the demolition of the highly venerated Jagannath Temple in Orissa (Exhibit No.24, Akhbarat, 1st June 1681)., Shortly afterwards, in September 1682, the famous Bindu-Madhav temple in Banaras was also demolished as per the Emperor’s orders (Exhibit No.27, Akhbarat, Julus 26, Ramzan 20). On 1st September 1681, while proceeding to the Deccan, where his rebel son Prince Akbar, escorted by Durga Das Rathore, had joined Chhatrapati Shivaji’s son, Shambhaji, thus creating a serious problem for him, Aurangzeb ordered that all the temples on the way should be destroyed. It was a comprehensive order not distinguishing between old and newly built temples (Exhibit No.26, Akhbarat, Julus 25, Ramzan 18). But in the district of Burhanpur, where there were a large number of temples with their doors closed, he preferred to keep them as such, as the Muslims were too few in number in the district. (Exhibit No.28, Akhbarat 13th October 1681). In his religious frenzy, even temples of the loyal and friendly Amber state were not spared, such as the famous temple of Jagdish at Goner near Amber (Exhibit Nos.30, Akhbarat, 28th March and 14th May 1680). In fact, his misguided ardour for temple destruction did not abate almost up to the end of his life, for as late as 1st January 1705 we find him ordering that the temple of Pandharpur be demolished and the butchers of the camp be sent to slaughter cows in the temple precincts (Akhbarat 49-7).

The number of such ruthless acts of Aurangzeb make a long list but here only a few have been mentioned, supported by evidence, mostly contemporary official records of Aurangzeb’s period and by such credible Persian sources as Maasir-i-Alamgiri.

I In obedience to the Quranic injunction, he reimposed Jizyah on the Hindus on 2nd April 1679 (Exhibit No.16), which had been abolished by Emperor Akbar in 1564, causing widespread anger and resentment among the Hindus of the country .A massive peaceful demonstration against this tax in Delhi, was ruthlessly crushed (Exhibit No.17), This hated tax involved heavy economic burden on the vast number of the poor Hindus and caused humiliation to each and every Hindu (Exhibit No.18). In the same vein, were his discriminatory measures against Hindus in the form of exemption of the Muslims from the taxes (Exhibit No.31, Akhbarat 16th April 1667) ban on atishbazi and restriction on Diwali (Exhibit No.32), replacement of Hindu officials by Muslims so that the Emperor’s prayers for the welfare of Muslims and glory of Islam, which were proving ineffective, be answered (Exhibit Nos.33, 34). He also imposed a ban on ziyarat and gathering of the Hindus at religious shrines, such as of Shitla Mata and folk Gods like Pir Pabu (Exhibit No.35, Akhbarat 16th September 1667), another ban on their travelling in Palkis, or riding elephants and Arab-Iraqi horses, as Hindus should not carry themselves with the same dignity as the Muslims! (Exhibit No.36). In the same vein came brazen attempts to convert Hindus by inducement, coercion (Exhibit No.41) or by offering Qanungoship (Exhibit No.44, 45, 46) and to honour the converts in the open Court. His personal directions were that a Hindu male be given Rs.4 and a Hindu female Rs.2 on conversion (Exhibit No.43,Akhbarat 7th April 1685). ‘Go on giving them”, Aurangzeb had ordered when it was reported to him that the Faujdar of Bithur, Shaikh Abdul Momin, had converted 150 Hindus and had given them naqd (cash) and saropas (dresses of honour) (Exhibit No.40, Akhbarat, 11th April 1667)….”

The purpose of quoting this was to show that the exhibition did not only have paintings but also had original firmans of Aurangzeb (I must confess that I have personally not been to the Exhibition – either in Delhi, Pune or Chennai)

2. Hopefully, it also adds a little bit to your remark: “…More important is to know what those firmans are about.” We at least know what some of them were about.

3. You say: “…And I AM NOT DISPUTING THAT AU RAZED TEMPLES. HE DID. BUT HE BUILT THEM ALSO. There is enough evidence of both. If you do not want to know this then it is up to you. ..”

Please provide references and/or links. I do want to know about them and I will be happy for you to post them here. Let everyone make their own judgement.

4. You mention: “…how do we go about understanding Au. You have no idea and you are not even interested in trying. ”

I will be the first to confess my ignorance. I am a curious student of history not a professional historian. Yes, I have no idea…but I hope my attempt at this discussion will make you re-consider whether I am “interested in trying” or not.

5. Again, quoting you: So I want to ask you again, if things are about being ON THE BALANCE then will I be a good Hindu if I kill 100 thousand Muslims and 90 thousand Hindus? Ok, 200 thousand Muslims and 90 thusand Hindus.

Where did I say anything about being a good Hindu or a bad Hindu (or a good Muslim or a bad Muslim)? I really do not get your point.

My question was straigtforward and I will repeat:
“On balance, did he commit more atrocities against Hindus … were his acts of benevolence really exceptions?”

The answer can be a simple “yes” or a “no” – or it can be a “we don’t know”.

6. You refer to: “…A fourth one is a farman in the possession of the present pujari of the Balaji Temple at Chitrakut in UP…”

Please provide a suitable reference and/or link.

7. Finally and I hope you will agree with this point at least: History should be about facts but facts are often lost in the mists of time and/or not recorded…So History becomes as much about interpretation as it should be about facts…and interpretations vary, depending on the prevailing ideology, biases and prejudices. Also, History is frequently written by the victors and/or the domiant elites…and that induces its own bias in historical records and “evidences”.

I am curious to hear what you think.

P.S. Many of you will find this link about Aurangzeb interesting, from which this excerpt:

His reign was an era of happiness and peace through the empire. He never committed the slightest injustice during his reign. He was overall the best Mughal emperor in its history.

I wonder which/what kind of “history” is being taught here.

P.P.S. For the benefit of those who may have not read Prof Eaton, here is a two-part essay by him on Temple Desecration etc:
Part 1: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1725/17250620.htm and
Part 2: http://www.flonnet.com/fl1726/17260700.htm

*** COMMENT COMBINED ***

My friend,

As i said we will find a mountain of evidence for both the sides of the argument.

Get hold of this book Islam and Indian Culture, by B N Pande (it was reprinted in 1994 by Anmol Publications, Delhi with a new author’s name- Md Shujaat !) and it has a chapter on distortions of Aurangzeb, Tipu and company. This guy was some mayor or something of Allahabad and friend of Tej Bahadur Sapru. On page 54 and 55 he tells of the UP High Court using documents to settle property disputes amongst the pandas of Jangam Bari Mahadev, Benaras and Someshvar Nath Mahadev, Ilahabad. Surprisingly these documents were nothing else but firmans granted by Aurangzeb for the upkeep of the deities in these temples. Amongst other HIndu temples which proudly possess the firmans of AUrangzeb and which he has listed are Mahakaleshvar, Ujjain; Balaji, Chitrakut; Shatrunjai Jain temple, and the author then adds that one can find many other such temples and gurudwaras if one was to look further. You just need to go to books.google.com and type some keywords and it will show all this to you. Or order this book. If you trust the internet then you could type these keywords and there would be results. One being http://www.newsindia-times.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=28_03_2008_015_001&mode=1
And if you want the real firmans then I am sorry I cannot provide them to you for they are in these temples, but someday I will god willing if i become a published historian:) There is apparently an inscription at the Chitrakut temple saying that they got the grant from Au ….

But that is not my point. And I also agree that this was a period of communal polarisation, but all I want to say is that like the current Indian govt he had to take both the sides. He was a politician first and foremost. I certainly do not believe that the British ‘divided’ us. My point is that he did both the things and we are being stupid by just piling up evidence for both the sides. We need to ask new questions to this evidence and no one is doing that. Its just black or white. And at least I am unconvinced by this approach.

Maybe we need to look closely at the reasons given behind these acts (both destruction/grants). Maybe we need to look at the role of local/larger politics. Maybe we need to know what being a Hindu or a Muslim means and how it is changing. If it was about being a Muslim then how do we explain Afghan hostility to him through out India and in NWFP? Why did he conquer the Sultanate of Golconda and other Muslim petty kings in the Deccan? A lot of the Jats who rebelled against him were Muslim as well. I have no answers but at least people can try.

***

Also just to remind you Au … had more Hindus as his mansabdars (both in absolute numbers and also by proportion) than any other previous Mughal emperor. Check this in

M Athar Ali, Apparatus of Empire.

http://www.albalagh.net/general/0093.shtml says
“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.”

***

This is from Eaton’s second essay —

Such ideas continued in force into the reign of Aurangzeb (1658-1707), whose orders to local officials in Banaras in 1659 clearly indicate that Brahmin temple functionaries there, together with the temples at which they officiated, merited state protecti on. “In these days,” he wrote in February of that year,

information has reached our court that several people have, out of spite and rancour, harassed the Hindu residents of Banaras and nearby places, including a group of Brahmins who are in charge of ancient temples there. These people want to remove those B rahmins from their charge of temple-keeping, which has caused them considerable distress. Therefore, upon receiving this order, you must see that nobody unlawfully disturbs the Brahmins or other Hindus of that region, so that they might remain in their t raditional place and pray for the continuance of the Empire.9

By way of justifying this order, the emperor noted: “According to the Holy Law (shari`at) and the exalted creed, it has been established that ancient temples should not be torn down.” On this point, Aurangzeb aligned himself with the theory and th e practice of Indo-Muslim ruling precedent. But then he added, “nor should new temples be built” – a view that broke decisively from Akbar’s policy of permitting his Rajput officers to build their own temple complexes in Mughal territory. Although this o rder appears to have applied only to Banaras – many new temples were built elsewhere in Mughal India during Aurangzeb’s reign – one might wonder what prompted the emperor’s anxiety in this matter.

***
Also, I hope these people are right (in your quotes above). I have reason not to trust them coz –
1) their paintings were ‘inspired’ and there is no reason to add them to the exhibition beyond the firmans.
2) how did they get hold of these firmans coz they are not allowed to be taken out of whatever archive they are in. I believe they are talking about the text/translations of the firmans.
3)i am unclear as to what they mean by ‘exhibits’.

But even if they have 10 firmans it is at least good archive work. However, I am sure some secularist will do the same exercise soon for grants and they will come up with some firmans(coz there is no dearth of Au’s firmans in archives and i am sure at least 5-10 will be about grants) , which will yet again prove the uselessness of piling up evidence.

Read the following online free books (thoroughly researched books with facts), you will become an authority on Muslim invasions, barbarism, destructions, and rule in Bharat (India)

1. Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim Invaders
(636 AD to 1206 AD)
by SITA RAM GOEL
Voice of India, New Delhi
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/hhrmi/

2. THE STORY OF ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM IN INDIA
by SITA RAM GOEL
Voice of India, New Delhi
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/

3. The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India
by K.S. Lal
Voice of India, New Delhi
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/tlmr/

4. Muslim Slave System in Medieval India
by K.S. Lal
Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/mssmi/

5. THE STORY OF ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM IN INDIA
by SITA RAM GOEL
Voice of India, New Delhi
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/

6. Indian Muslims Who Are They
by K.S. Lal
Voice of India, New Delhi
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/imwat/

7. Muslim Separatism Causes and Consequences
by Sita Ram Goel
Voice of India, New Delhi
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/muslimsep/

8. Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India
by K. S. Lal
Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/tpmsi/

9. JIZYAH AND THE SPREAD OF ISLAM
by HARSH NARAIN
Voice of India, New Delhi
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/jtsi/index.htm

10. JIHÃD THE ISLAMIC DOCTRINE OF PERMANENT WAR
by Suhas Majumdar
Voice of India, New Delhi
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/jihad/

11. Understanding Islam through Hadis Religious Faith or Fanaticism?
Ram Swarup
Exposition Press, Smithtown, New York
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/uith/

Please share and forward to others, for the greater cause of our nation and dharma.

Bharat
=====

Many of you might enjoy reading this article by Arun Shourie (although it was written about 10 years ago): The Litmus Test of Whether Your History is Secular

Its conclusion is worth reproducing:

“And this is the point : the litmus test of secularist writing is whether you are prepared to stand up for Aurangzeb or not.”

See also: If You Let Facts Interfere You Lack Party Spirit which has some entries from the Akhbarat of Aurangzeb regarding demolition of temples.

Finally, have a look at a review of Arun Shourie’s book, “EMINENT HISTORIANS: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud” by C. J. S. Wallia at http://www.indiastar.com/wallia19.html

Dear Shantanu,
Outstanding reply and excellent links. Let us hope the world awakens to the truth.
THANK YOU SHRI: GAUTIER and SHRI: SHANTANU for removing one more cobweb from my mind and awakening me.
Really Sir, SATYAMEVA JAYATE!!
Regards,
vck

*** COMMENT COMBINED ***

Whether Aurangzeb was right or wrong – can be a matter of debate, but there is no doubt that he was doing exactly what a good muslim should do as laid down in Koran and examples set by Prophet Mohammed himself. No wonder muslims hold him in high esteem.

***
Aurangzeb also buried alive the two sons of Guru Gobind Singh when they refused to embrace islam

Jagmohan Singh Khurmi is absolutely right.

JL Mehta, Reader in History, Punjab University, Chandigarh, in his book- Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India, published by Sterling Publishers Private Limited, Bangalore.( Reprint of Second revised and enlarged edition in 1989). writes-“ It is now a part of history that during the very lifetime of the prophet, the Jews and Christians of Medina, who had in all humility accepted their inferior status as zimmis and begun to pay jaziya to the first Muslim state proved irksome to the true believers and the prophet was constrained to turn them out of medina. Umar I (634-44 A.D.), the famous of the pious caliphs, following in the footprints of the prophet, expelled the Jews and Christians from the whole of Arabia, thus converting the homeland of the Arabs into a true dar ul lslam. The prophet and the pious caliphs had thereby set the example of religious intolerance towards their non-Muslim subjects which was treated as an ideal by the orthodox Muslim rulers.

Muhammed bin Qasim who laid the foundation of the Muslim rule in Sind and Multan (711-12), secured the status of zimmis for his Hindu subjects from the caliph and accorded protection to their lives and property on the receipt of jaziya. Obviously this step was necessitated as a matter of political expediency because in spite of the loss of independence, the Hindu masses in general offered dogged resistance to forced conversions. It was physically impossible for Qasim and handful of his Arab followers to compel the vanquished multitude ‘to choose between Islam and death’, particularly when they were armed to teeth. Recognition of Hindu idolaters as zimmis by Qasim proved to be a momentous decision because such a concession had earlier been denied to the ‘idolaters of Arabia. His example was followed by the turko-afghan rulers of Delhi in their dealing with the Hindus. (Page 296-97)

In his book The Sultanate of Delhi (Publishers-Shiva Lal Agarwala & Co, Agra, 1995 edition), Dr. Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava, writes about Ala-ud din Khilji, “He consulted the famous qazi, Mughis-ud-din of Bayana about the position which the Hindus should be allowed to enjoy in his kingdom. The qazi replied: “The Hindus are designated in the Law as payers of tribute (kharaj guzar), and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouth, they must without reluctance, open their mouth wide to receive it. By these acts of degradation are shown the extreme obedience of the zimmis, the glorification of the true faith. God himself orders them to be humiliated (as He says, till they pay the jizya) with the hands and are humbled………the prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them and to make them captive…….no other authority except the great Imam (Abu Hanifa), whose faith we follow, has sanctioned the imposition of the jizya on the Hindus.” According to all other theologians, the rule for the Hindu was “either death or Islam.” (Page number 150-51). Hence as a true Muslim Aurangzeb followed the footsteps of his prophet and the shariat.

…hi all..

….the blatant myths against muslim rulers in india is not something new….this false concept as a result of jealousy and hatred had always been there in right wing hindu minds from the very begining of medieval period but could not vent out as the rulers were muslims….now they got the chance so they are engaged in writing as much falsehood as possible against pious muslim rulers….they will always give references from books written by right wing political historians or some ill informed and unfamous westerners……why not give references from muslim writers and books of world history….if there is any mughal who is world famous it is aurangzeb….he was a great ruler and a powerful emperor….

…if he could had been so much against non muslims….why there were marathas , rajputs and even sikhs in his military….think over it…

….if he was so much against non muslims….why did jaisingh rejected the offer and advise of shivaji, when shivaji tried to bribe him…..and thus shivaji had to suffer a crushing defeat from the aurangzebs force under the commandership of diler khan and jaisingh….as obvoious, coz it was the first battle when shivaji fought face to face like a man….otherwise he was helpless against his insticnt of being a “mountainous rat”…

….its just “one more” cheap and shameless attempt to present aurangzeb-shivaji conflict as a hindu-muslim conflict….giving rise to communal sentiments…vryone should remember that as aurangzeb had non muslim ppl in his army….even shivaji had some muslims in his army….

…the greatest obstacle coming in the way of advancement of india is the wrong notion being tried to spread far and wide by right wing fundamentalists to gain power, name and fame….matters are distorted , fabricated and presented in a concocted manner to divide the country….never had been hatred was the reason of a great civilisation….nations always rise on the foundation of understanding , brotherhood , love , womens respect and discipline. Hating and alienating certain section of society on communal lines will serve no purpouse of any constructive task…

…..hello khurmi…

…ur comments contain a typical hatred against minorities ….as is obvious seems hurt and jealous over the past events of indians medieval histroy which may be unfortunately a nighmare for persons like you and difficult to overcome the false egos and prejudices…

1. …as far as chronicles of history are concerned….you are totally misinformed if you say it is recorded by muslim writers….(except a few that too of foreign origin like alberuni)…but for the sake of argument even if i agree with you….try to understand that India was an islamic country at that time….so Indian Govt. was just trying to enforce the countries law and order on the people….like any educated Govt. will do for the welfare of the country…

2….india was an islamic state at that time….but today india is a secular country…so dont make wrong comparisons…you cant extend the facts of past and try to decorate the events of that age with todays age…
just imagine the residents of orissa today asking for revenge from the people of delhi or bihar….coz once upon a time somwhere around 250BC the ruler of magadh (asoka)…plundered and destroyed their state….it sounds utter gibberish….so if at all some muslim rulers once upon a time caused chaos in india….does that mean today the same should be done on minorities or instead of learning some lesson, India would once again experience the same fate…. if at all some muslim rulers did wrong why todays educated indian wanna repeat the same on a particular section…isnt this hypocrisy?

3….comparing hitler with Aurangzeb is misjudgement….Hitler was a racist , and fascist…Aurangzeb was neither of the two but a pious personality….Hitler was against jews….Aurangzeb just tried to put law and order in the country and crushed down rebels who opposed him as any ruler will do then be it muslim or nonmuslim…. He just tried to implement the then countries laws…and he didnt carried any holocaust against any section of the society…..dont try to shade the past with communal colours…

4. …as far as plunder and loot are concerned…are these terms so alien to non muslim rulers…..Asoka , Shivaji ( he looted caravans and his expedition to surat is famous) etc….this was but a strategy of war of kings and monarchs of imperialistic age of histroy…

5. who wanted to divide the country…ofcourse hindu right wing….not from 1947 but since ancient ages of indian history….making a kshatriya fight with another….inviting one king to defeat other king….raising one king to defeat other…dividing the society in groups and castes…why always foreign rulers could make it so easy when it came to india…from time immemorial…how a separate nation came into existence???…coz of the division policy of right wing fundamentalists….who assasinated apostle of peace (Gandhi)???…it was just the result of hatred…reason was just HATRED….the policy of divide and rule was not something started by britishers but was learnt by britishers by the indigenous …hindu fundamentalists are often notorious of causing assasinations in disguise…sometimes in the garb of muslims sometimes sikh…this type of shrewd and treacherous
policy was never adopted by muslims…

6. …remember HATRED is the cause of only destruction and no one benefits from this emotion…turn the pages of histroy you will come to know ….nations professing hatred always crumbled to dust…

@prince: You seem to have completely ignored my earlier advice to you to READ before you write.

I am referring to your comment dt. Apr 16, which you start with:

“…….the blatant myths against muslim rulers in india is not something new…”

If you would have spent even a minute reading the post before chipping in, you would have realised that the “blatant myth” that I had exposed was *actually* a myth and Aurangzeb had indeed demolished the Kashi Vishwanath temple..

The *new* thing was the expose not the earlier cover-up.

“…this false concept as a result of jealousy and hatred had always been there in right wing hindu minds…”

What “false concept” are you talking about?

“…if there is any mughal who is world famous it is aurangzeb….he was a great ruler and a powerful emperor…”

Great…where did you study your history, I wonder?

“…if he could had been so much against non muslims….why there were marathas , rajputs and even sikhs in his military….think over it…”

READ my comments (and those of others) before jumping into any discussion…

“…it was the first battle when shivaji fought face to face like a man….otherwise he was helpless against his insticnt of being a “mountainous rat”…”

Again, I would love to know the source of your “knowledge” of history..

“..ts just “one more” cheap and shameless attempt to present aurangzeb-shivaji conflict as a hindu-muslim conflict…”

What are you talkinkg about? Where did Shivaji come in the picture?

“…the greatest obstacle coming in the way of advancement of india is the wrong notion being tried to spread far and wide by right wing fundamentalists…”

Stick to the topic.

“…who wanted to divide the country…ofcourse hindu right wing….not from 1947 but since ancient ages of indian history…..making a kshatriya fight with another….inviting one king to defeat other king….raising one king to defeat other…dividing the society in groups and castes…

What does Hindu right-wing have to do with this?

“…why always foreign rulers could make it so easy when it came to india…from time immemorial…”

Again, READ a little bit about India’s history…It will make you a wiser person.

“how a separate nation came into existence???…coz of the division policy of right wing fundamentalists…who assasinated apostle of peace (Gandhi)???…”

Stick to the topic and be careful about what you write.

Avoid commenting on things you dont know about…your ignorance shines through.

***

Here is my response to some of the points made in comment dt Apr 19th:

“…India was an islamic country at that time….so Indian Govt. was just trying to enforce the countries law and order on the people….like any educated Govt. will do for the welfare of the country…

” Indian government? you cannot be serious…and you mean to say whayt Aurangzeb was doing was for the welfare of the country?…how can atrocities on the majority community be in the interest of the country and for the welfare of India?

Jagmohan has already pointed out the fallacy of comparing Ashok with Aurangzeb…please read a little bit of history before you get into arguments like these

“… or instead of learning some lesson, India would once again experience the same fate…”

Is that a threat?

Finally, as regards point #5, next time you make wild statements/points like this, I will delete it without even bothering to explain

***

You appear to be back to your old ways of making statements without justification and/or evidence…mostly to provoke a discussion.

While I strive to keep this platform open (in the spirit of freedom of expression, such freedom cuts both ways ( as I am sure you realise) and it comes with accountability and responsibility.

If you cannot exercise common sense and restraint, you really should not be wasting your time here..

So please be warned (again) that I will be forced to summarily delete your comments if you continue in the same vein..

P.S. I find it amazing that you can sympathise with someone like Aurangzeb

***

Many of you will find these two links interesting:

Excellent article on History as “taught” in Pakistan by Prof Shaida Kazi, Mar 2005

and this wikipedia entry on Pakistan Studies

*** COMMENT COMBINED ***

Dear Friends

I wish you had come across my reasonably well researched articles regarding Aurangzeb……

Within a month i will be coming out with a short paper on Aurangzeb and the rape of Indian History with more citations and references

http://azygos.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/aurangzeb-allah-s-chosen-warrior.htm
http://azygos.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/aurangzeb-allah-s-chosen-warrior-part-2.htm
http://azygos.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/aurangzeb-allah-s-chosen-warrior-2.htm

If you are interested to link up any of my articles to this site, do let me know:

Regards,
Saurav Basu [nick: Azygos]

***

@moderator

It is true that Aurangzeb issued a few firmans for building new temples…But that was in 1659 when he actually required the support of Hindu nobles in the war of succession against Dara Shikoh.

Of course, Richard Eaton even denies that Aurangzeb issued a firman for destruction of temples….according to him, it meant they were “subejct to demolition”

Too much of text torturing……..

This is important work – the nailing of the lies told by Secularist and Marxist Historians, who it appears, do not care for any original research – Instead, settle for re-writing what the British wrote, which in turn is a re-write of other lies made up in prior times.

I hope a new culture of refuting this body work, is begun in earnest in India, and cleanses our soil and atmosphere of the trash that has overcome it.

Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records (based on Historical Research and Documents provided by the Bikaner Museum Archives)

View online exhibition at http://according-to-mughal-records.blogspot.com/

He was a tyrant in the truest sense… and even today, there are towns and roads named after him in India like the posh Aurangzeb Road in New Delhi.

Sriyut,
You are a great hindu and your ideas are also grat. In the secular constitution and secular ruling political parties the future of hindu is not safe. All the benefits and plannes for Muslims only. Muslim is not a minor community as per costitution. Muslim terrarism is on very high level they make blast on every maga city of india. The secular parties are not with Hindu community. We can not get one Inch land at kashmir but muslim captured all the kashmir.

Banwari Lal Sharma

Jodha Akbar shown on 15th August on television…. I hope they are not potraying Akbar an Indian National Hero

The released fictional fairy tale movie, “Jodha Akbar” has stirred the hornet’s nest by depicting a period in Indian History when Mughals ruled India. It has started many debates, and has led to many protests across India. The debates and protests pertained to the supposedly misrepresented history, as one cannot tell for sure whether Akbar did or did not marry a rajput princess named Jodhabai. But these protests and debates missed another important point, perhaps which is more important than any other debatable issues about this movie, the portrayal of Akbar as India’s emporer and for that matter the mughal rule itself.

The following paragraph appears in the Indian History article on wikipedia.

” Liberal Muslim kings are also a part of Indian pride. Akbar was a powerful Mughal emperor who admired Hinduism, forged familial and political bonds with Hindu Rajput kings, and developed for the first time in medieval India an environment of religious freedom. Akbar undid most forms of religious discrimination, and invited the participation of wise Hindu ministers and kings, and even religious scholars in his court. In his reign, India was politically powerful, prosperous and its common people secure.”

Akbar was not just an Indian Muslim King. In fact, he was not Indian at all. I do not understand why our history books eulogize him as a great Indian ruler.In the movie Jodha akbar(which is a mediocre movie, to say the least),the director Ashutosh Gowarikar has made miserable attempts to show him as an “Indian” and in the process has twisted history.

Akbar’s grandfather, Babur, a ruler of a small central asian state, brought the Mughal tribe to India as a mercenary army. His father, Humayun, hardly stayed in India, as he was exiled initially, and died shortly after he finally managed to recapture power.Akbar, who was incidently born on Indian soil, was brought up in Afghanistan.It is very difficult to comprehend how he can be described as an Indian.

By that standard, even Rudyard Kipling would be a better Indian than Akbar, or for that matter any british who was born and brought up India at the fag end of the British Raj, with 3-4 generations of his family living in India, taking 150 years of British presence in India into account. There could be many examples of such British families.

I am not sure how Akbar could have developed love and affection for India as his motherland. His feelings at the best can be described as being similar to that of an owner towards his/her property, which should not be mistaken with feelings of genuine affection.

His grandfather, Babur, has written the following in Baburnama,

“Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks.”

While , the following inscription has been carved on his tomb in Kabul,

“If there is a paradise on earth, it is this, it is this, it is this!”

One cannot blame him for this, as India was not his motherland, central asia was. How can we expect a dramatic transition in just two generations? Babur, Akbar and all the mughals were foreign aggressors who conquered and ruled our land, but they never belonged here.
It would be like calling Mountbatten, a great “Indian” governer general.

The myths of the benevolence of Akbar as a ruler, or how great ruler he proved to be, and how liberal he was with hindus or other Indian communal denominations need to be analysed in historical context. True, he had abolished jiziya, and had hindu ministers and generals in his court.

Even Aurangzeb had Hindu generals like Mirza Raja Jaisingh, who commanded mighty armies. (Mirza Raje Jaisingh was dispatched to eliminate Shivaji maharaj and swarajya in Maharashtra. He was killed by aurangzeb by treachery.)
But that doesn’t make him a tolerant ruler, does it?(Assuming all agree that he was not. One must not wonder, if tommorrow some movie or book glorifies him as a tolerant and great “Indian” ruler.)

Lord Bentinck abolished the Sati by law and introduced reform.Queen Victoria’s proclamation, after the 1857 uprising, promised all goodies to Indians like non-interference in religious matters, no further usurption of princely states, and lots more. And there was no violation of Queen Victoria’s proclamation by the british, in subsequent years.

But that doesn’t translate into ” Queen Victoria and the British Raj: The tolerant, just, great “Indian” empress and her Indian empire”. Does it?

Akbar did try very much to destroy all native opposition the Mughals, notably from the rajputs. Some wavered, and sided with him, and they managed to survive, which is no glory. Many great fighters like Rana Pratap refused to surrender their independance and honour to foriegners and fought to martrydom. Akbar, after many conquests had ordered mass executions, a fact little represented.

So how do we describe Akbar? May be a shade better that despots like Aurangzeb. But Great Indian Emporer, never.

Alternative analysis of his so called tolerant and liberal nature can be had as follows. Humayun had just managed to wrest back the control of Delhi, when he died. Mughal power in India at that point of time was new, weak and vulnerable. Continuation of the agenda of his holy fighter or Ghazi(fighters of Islam, and destroyers of pagan idol worshippers) lineage of Chengiz khan and Taimurlang was not going to be easy. It is reasonable to beleive that he was proud of his ancestry, beleived to be of Chengiz khan and Taimur lang, all of whom were champions of militant Islam and destroyers of non-believers, and aspired to as “great” as all of them.

But Mughal rule in India was in no shape to allow that. Hence , clever and cunning as he was,Akbar managed to sow divide between the Indian ranks, mainly composed of rajput princes, converted some of them to his side. Those who didn’t join him, were brutally destroyed. To keep those Rajput pillars of the Mughal establishment intact, he had to be seen as a liberal. The rest is history. In case of aurangzeb, he had no need to be liberal, as he had inherited a strong and well entrenched Mughal empire.

So Akbar, portrayed as a great and liberal emporer, has been acting as a counterweight to other fanatics like Babur, Jehangir and Aurangzeb , so as to manage a “balanced” picture of the Mughal era. This plain and simple twisting and manipulation of history. But it has been done so for years together in this regard, and now we tend to take these things as granted.

In fact it was no better than the British rule, in fact far worse.

So now, the important question remains, what was the motive behind such tampering with history, negationism and concealment?

May be some elements in India still identify themselves with the Mughal rulers. They have a subconscious conviction that they are the rightful owners of the subcontinent and they captured it in the form of Mughal empire.

Pakistan is the manifestation of the extremist fringe of these elements.

Just have a look at the website of pakistan government. We all wondered what history is taught in pakistani schools, since it did not exist before 1947. They teach the history of Mughal rule in India. And of Mahmud of Ghazani, mahamud ghori and all those foreign aggressors. They tell their children that their forefathers won India in war. The british took it away, and then Quaid-e- Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah restored some of the glory by creation of pakistan. They teach the philosophy of “Hak se liya pakistan, cheen ke lenge hindustan”( pakistan was earned by right, hindustan would be earned by might) which was their war cry at the time of partition.

We all would agree that these elements exist in some form or the other, in varying concentration and ideological fervour, in present day India.

And to appease them, it is imperative that the history of Mughals be presented in positive light, that they be shown as rightful rulers of India. This perverse logic has led to blatant twisting and misrepresentation of history.

But we nationalists have to stand by Indian honour and treat aggressors as they were. Any glorification of an aggressor would be direct insult to our national honour.

All the biography and all the books written by the sardars and other officials of that time clearly mentions that they destroyed the temple not only kashi also many temples including mathura. How can all the sardars and officials lie at the same time. Also everybody knows Aurangzeb is fundamentalist muslim. Prof pandey must and sholuld read those biography and writtings of those officials rather than reading the document. Everybody including a 8 year child which one to trust the “document” or the writtings. Really its tragady of history and cleary shows the unwillingness of prof.Pandey to know the truth.

Thanks for the research.
Even a practicing brahmin of varanasi told me the same story. C how ppl r made to believe lies.
The natives of kasi do not the real story.
the natives of ahamadabad even rss full timers, do not kno that the jama masjid there was a kali temple.

The lakhs of pilgrims that visit kasi, come there a bhikaris, to beg from viswanth, they dont bother whether thir god is in a bowdi or in a small pit of a temporary shelter, on the road or in shandas. They only pray him to fulfil their desires, frm where ever he is.
they never bother for his getting his palace back!

Does it really matter if Aurangazeb or Akbar were tolerant/Hindu-loving? They were kings, and their function was to prey upon the common people. How does it really matter if their tax officials asked us your religion before they looted us? Or their soldiers had a slightly smaller sword for the Muslims? They were parasites who ruled the country primarily for themselves and we bicker about the size of the crumbs that they threw to us dogs? The basic reason of kings’ animosity towards temples was the wealth they had. If the Hindu temples had no idols, I am sure they would have found out some other “reason” for destroying (and looting) them. After all, even the worst despot thinks of posterity.

The prime factor in all aggression is greed. All glorious conquerors went for the loot. They dreamed up all sorts of excuses, sick jokes like liberating the Holy Land, Lebensraum for the Ubermensch, Ashwamedha, destruction of infidels, the White Man’s burden and so on, ad nauseam. The one common thread was and is – wealth at the destination. Gold, minerals, oil – these are the real gods and that is why we see the great People’s Republic and the greatest democracy in the world sucking up to the murderers in Sudan. Or the Leader of the Free World invading Iraq on the basis of fictitious WMDs.

So what do we do about this? Call up Aurangazeb’s ghost and ask him why he demolished the temple? Now the dastardly deed is in the past, and we will never be able to trace the bloodlines and find out the great-great grandson of the mason and tell him, “tere dadaji ne mandir toda tha” before we mete out the punishment.

Any other solution? A healthy compromise? We know the bind the proponents on both sides are. They are like two dogs who have come up much ahead of their packs, and stand snarling at each other, each unable to retreat because the first step backward might encourage the opponent to attack. Now they can only stand snarling at each other, hoping that the rest of the pack comes up to attack. Can they ever dream of compromising?

Between people who have trust and respect for each other, any sort of compromise and understanding or sacrifice is possible. Unfortunately, we are burdened with professional hate-mongers who will not allow the smallest seedling of understanding to grow in the no man’s land they have created between the communities. I do not really know if these people will be successful in totally eradicating Hindus or Muslims, but they seem to be quite successful at eradication of human(e) beings.

Sorry for being off-topic, but I think the truth about Tipu Sultan should also come out. Other than the local people in Mysore and Mandya district, everyone in India seem to think he was a very ‘secular’ ruler. I have the Mysore Gazatteer which describes his ‘sickular’ credentials clearly.

@Sahadevan,
Lets say how about banning history as a subject for study in India? It would have been a great move if it had been done before Mr.Abdul Kalam Azad had become India’s first education minister, from whose time marxist’s version of fictitious history came into the Indian system.

HELP – ANY PAINTING OF THE OLD TEMPLE ?

In the independent nation, the natives cannot even have a glimpse of the remains of the ancient temple at kasi.

There r some painings of ghats and other templs by whites who came after the looter.

Has any one compared the scultpure of the remains with that of any other temple to guess the sikhara etc, to have a mental or imaginary picture to be hanged by all those loving lord shiva ?

@Reena,
Thanks. I have seen that. Most of their quotes are correct, but not all. Though its crystal clear that he was a jehadi, they have referred to Mysore Gazateer for destroying 8000 temples in malabar, but I couldn’t find that in the gazateer. just Fyi, i know i’m off topic, so will not continue discussion on this jehadi under this topic.

Is the “late historian Bishma Narain Pande” even a real person? I cant find anything online about him or his “original” work. Even the story about this historian seems to be made up!

Vikas,
Now I can not give proofs.
Now if you have faith in internet
... which I havent read but I am presuming would detail more such instances.
But I can bet my life that he was not lying.
This is a funny way to argue against Shantanu’s much-documented post. You were assuming and betting a lot. I do not know you but I can assume that you assume a lot without doing any proper research. Would you agree to that assumption? How about some quotes for a change or few links that actually works? How can you give a reference to a book which you have not read at all?
On the ohter hand, I would give you a book that I have read before:
English translation of AHKAM-I-ALAMGIRI or otherwise known as
Anecdotes Of Aurangzeb
Look at section IV for his dealing with Hindus.
Here is a link (along with JN Sarcar’s very rigorous “A life of Aurangzib and Historical Notes”):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/420268/Anecdotes-of-Aurangzeb

It is unfortunate to destroy places of worship Irrespective of any religion. I don’t know why they did it, which religion doesn’t teach. However, our country wasn’t republic nor democratic at that time. And, neither any witnesses are alive to give evidence of nor we have any culprits alive to punish. All we knew is from historian and which is always debatable. My question is should we be judging a monarch rule on his doing and should we be learning from it. Well, What we know is Babri Masjid was demolished when our country is democratic and when we all are alive. Majority of minority citizen see and believe Hinduism as peace loving people and was enriched with their Veda’s and Yoga’s. But still it doesn’t mean that those who had destroyed mosque would represent of all Hindu sentiments. What I learnt whoever try to represent any community or Religion with evil intentions had let down their society and community at large. The fame, ego and power had always overtaken them and lead to disasters. Now even today, in the name of any religion people just find the ways to benefit politically and later they dictate their terms.

Hello Shantanu,
Thanks for a good summary on Kashi Vishwanath and also Koenraad Elst’s article. I have also read Maasir Alamgiri translation by Jadunath Sarkar and I agree with Dr. Elst on his analysis.

On your comment however “and one more thing. Au� had the maximum number of Hindu mansabdars under him. More than even the �secular� Akbar. How might you explain that ?

Reference

M Athar Ali, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb.”

Have referred to the book “Religious policy of Mughal emperors” by on Shri Ram Sharma, Asia publishing house, first edition 1940 and second edition 1962? In that he has quantitatively compared the number of Hindu mansabdars in each Mughal emperor office:

Akbar: 14 out of 137 (1000 and above)
Jahangir: 6 out of 47 (3000 and above)
Shah Jahan: 51 out of 241 (1000 and above)
Aurangzeb: Exact numbers are difficult to say because apparently Kazim was allowed to write only first 10 years of his reign and Alamgiri does not have concrete data. Sharma goes through lot of data analysis but the conclusion seems to be that the number of Hindus mansabdars went to 50% of that of Shah Jahan by 1690.

Anand

Another link on Audrey Truschke
The curious case of controversial historian Audrey Truschke and why her “…work is problematic not for its elisions and omissions but for the implications it holds for Western scholarship on India” by Vikram Zutshi, MARCH 12, 2021