Comments on: Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?

By: MALIMEE

MALIMEE — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:35:49 +0000

To
RBO

It is very convenient to claim a high moral position for Hindus to assert themselves as the ‘indegenous’ people of India. However, history tells an altogether a different story.

History narrates that Aryans migrated from Central Asia to Indus valley. Indus valley civilization was not an Aryan civilization. Aryan conquered the land and imposed their cultural and religious practices over the dravidians dwelling in the indus valley and inturn adopted some from the cultural religious practices of dravidians as well. The majority of dravedians were pushed to the southern side and aryan established their rule in the north.

What is known today as ‘Hindu’ actually should be read as ‘Sindhu’ not Hindu and present Hinduism is an imposed ism on the dwellers of this land from the aryan conquerers.

Just because the Aryans happened to conqure this land millenniums ahead of others, like Mughal rulers and British, they cannot pass for as indegeneous.

Now it looks like that the pan claiming to pot as if it has more rights to the home which both of them have been accidently brought on differnt dates.

Is it tenable?

By: rameshnaidoo

rameshnaidoo — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:16:50 +0000

Have a look at ‘Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records’, it contains paintings and sketches about his rule as well as farhans, original edicts by Aurangzeb, preserved at the Bikaner Museum, Rajasthan, India.

Click to view the complete exhibition online:
http://according-to-mughal-records.blogspot.com/

Best

Ramesh

By: Sayed Mohammad Durrez

Sayed Mohammad Durrez — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:50:09 +0000

King Aurenzeb was the most intelligent, Adminstrative, Lawful king of all Mugal Dienesty. He was very religious and far sighted king. He strikly obey rules and want every body in his wast empire to obey them. He respect all existing religin in india and serve them with his best. He nevr forced or pressureised eney community to convrt. King Aurenzeb was “The Best King” of all muslim rulers in india who rules in india more then One Thousand years….

By: Muhammed Ali

Muhammed Ali — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:37:51 +0000

Awrangzeb was a great SCHOLAR, A GREAT SUFI, AND A SUNNI WHO FOUGHT AGAINST THE HERETICAL SECTS WHICH HAD SPRUNG UP IN INDIA.

By: shadowofears

shadowofears — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:59:24 +0000

What about great Britan who have cut the heads of seven sons of Bahadershahzafer and put before him in a dish.

By: Parmeshwar Coomar

Parmeshwar Coomar — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 05:56:29 +0000

It is hard to decipher what is the truth, especially in view of all this happening many many years ago. If Aurangazeb was so cruel and bigoted why did not all of India become forceably muslim during his time? What was the number of muslims in India then vis-a-vis Hindus? There is some truth to the fact that Shah Jehan, favored Dara Shikoh over others. What disposition had he made of his other able bodied sons he used for his own gain in the whole of India while he was king and while Dara would be king if he had his way? Deccan campaign was difficult to manage and he had sent his most capable son Aurangazeb to manage the conflict. Why not make him king too? While Aurangazeb was not entirely a ’saint’ as he is made out to be in above he is both clever and ruthless, qualities essential to being a king - Hindu or Muslim alike.

By: Ali

Ali — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:45:50 +0000

To RBO

You seem hell bent on hating Islam and you even go as far as quoting

wat right do the Mughals have to protect the Indians and from wat?

Well if they were ruling the nation then they don’t have a right but an OBLIGATION to protect all citizens from harm. You again whining like the anti Islamics. If they didn’t protect you would be whining on how bad they were for not protecting and since they did protect you start whining on Who they are to protect…. You make no mention of the fact that despite centuries of Muslim rule India remained predominantly Hindu… hmmm I guess that would put a damper on your spread by the sword allegation against Islam.

By: Sajid

Sajid — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:15:09 +0000

RBO - I think you are missing the point of the article - the point being akbar etc are celebrated but aurungzeb is not. They were both emperors - and according to you foreigners in India - but one is slandered and the other celebrated.

The reason is not because of what each did or didn’t do for their citizens. Both were generous and accepted people of different religions into their inner courts. Arguably Aurungzeb did more eg through land grants to Hindu Temples and the lifting of taxes. The reason that Aurungzeb is so maligned is only due to his personal religiousity. And that has to be wrong.

His religiousity manifested itself in a type of tax thaat some people may find offensive but the actual level of tax paid by a non muslim fell whereas for a muslim it rose relative to his non muslim countrymen.

By: RBO

RBO — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:51:08 +0000

Glorifying Moghul empire in India by a Muslim is the same as a British talking big about their clonising activities. If Muslims talk big about their “tolerance” of allowing only two HIndus decide the monetary policies of an MUslims empire, then British should not be condemned, because altough they were the colonisers they did allow indigenious ppl of the respective countries occupy minor positions in their Raj.THey also introduced new administrstion practices,new medicines to fight tropical diseases,founded new schools, colleges,hospitals, introduced laws that are used till today with some adjustments the list continues. THis does not make the Brits benevolent conquerors.We still treat them as villains of our history books, treat colonial eras as dark ages in our history books, why ? Because they were not of the our country. they came they conquered and pludered our wealth. “WAT RIGHTS DO PPL FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY TO impose rules on us” we ask when we were fighting against the westrern colonisers.
SIMILARLY MUGHALS TOO SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO SUCH CRTICISMS. India is a Hindu country the place where it was born,a majority of HIndus. ISlam came from the outside , MUghal emperors are descende d from the great grandson of Tamerlane, Babar, who on his mother’s side was descended from the famous Genghiz Khan, came to India in 1526 at the request of an Indian governor.Wat right does he have to grant a deed for a Temple in a land which is not rightfully his in the first place!
YOU SAY THAT “For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned” wat right do the Mughals have to protect the Indians and from wat? THe picture is you came frome the outside ,conquered the land and its citizens, later forbade them to bear arms, since they are forbidden to bear arms you say you are going protect them so you cahrge them a tax. This is actually wat protecction rackets do.Forcefully extract payments from ppl by browbeating them and tell them they are going to be protected from threats that are non existant.Sounds like aurangzeb is don or a dada.By the way who gave him the task to protect the nonMuslims? If he was so concerned abt protecting the non MUslims he could have done it by aiding the HIndu kingdoms during war.He doesn’t have to COnquer them! Empires are evil no matter who asts them up. The concept tht some one else can conquer some one else is disgusting no matter who does it.Let us condemn colonialist activities no matter who does it but not the religion of the empire builders.

By: Farouk

Farouk — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:56:01 +0000

Excellent article!