Home

News

Blogs

Urdu Blogs

Urdu Articles

Useful Links

Books & Articles

Multimedia

more...

EMPEROR AURANGZEB: TRUTHS ABOUT A

RULER
8/30/2015

0 Comments

Hello, I am Brijendra Singh; I have done my PGDM course from I.I.S.E Business
School Lucknow. I am not a student of history but I like to read history due to my
interest. In this article I have tried to provide some facts related to Emperor
Aurangzeb. His image as a person and as a ruler is negative among the Indian
citizens, but I am sure when you will go through this article your attitude will change
towards this ruler.

Aurangzeb Alamgir was the sixth & the last great mughal emperor of India. He ruled
India from 1658 to 1707 AD. He was one of the greatest mughal emperors & lived a
very simple life. He lived on a small quantity of food, he used to write the quran with
his own hand & sell them to earn extra wage. If he wanted, he could have lived a life
of extra-ordinary luxury as the, emperors, kings, nawabs, rajas, maharajas did in
those days.

He was a well-read man; he kept up his love of books till the end. He wrote beautiful
Persian prose. A selection of his letters (Ruqat-i-Alamgiri) has long been a standard
model of simple but elegant prose. He understood music well but he gave up this
amusement in accordance with Islamic injunctions.

Emperor Aurangzeb is considered as the greatest of all the mughal kings. The mughal
state reached its height under his leadership. The state has 29.2% of the world
population under its flag (175 million out of 600 million in 1700 AD) & was one of
the richest states the world had ever seen, with a world GDP of 24.5% ($ 90.8 billion
out of $ 371 billion in 1700).

Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857AD,
probably no one has received as much condemnation from western & Hindu writers
as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu,
who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated them in awarding high
administrative positions, & who interfered in their religious matters. This view has
been heavily promoted in the government approved text books in schools & colleges
across post partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the
best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal,
magnanimous, tolerant, competent & far sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open
disputing those allegations. For e.g., historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee 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 was 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. A number of non-Muslims including Hindus,
Sikhs, Marathas & Jats, were employed by him in his court. He did not compromise
on the fundamentals of Islam, which are infact the moving spirit of every faith.
Historical facts must be interpreted in their true & objective spirit & not subjectively
as expressed by the Hindu writers.

Dr. BISHAMBHAR NATH PANDES VIEW

The late scholar & historian, Dr.Bishambhar Nath Pandes research efforts exploded
myths on Aurangzebs rule. They also offer an excellent example of what history has
to teach us if only we study it dispassionately. Mr. Pande was ranked among the very
few Indians & very fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be a little careful when
dealing with such history. He knew that this history was originally compiled by
European writers whose main objective was to produce a history that would serve
their policy of divide & rule.

In his famous Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr. Pande said: Thus under a
definite policy the Indian history text books were so falsified & distorted as to give an
impression that the medieval (i.e., Muslim) period of Indian history was full of
atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects & the Hindus had to
suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule and there were no common factors
(between Hindus & Muslims) in social, political & economic life.

Therefore, Dr.Pande was extra careful. Whenever he came across a fact that looked
odd to him, he would try to check & verify rather than adopt it uncritically. He came
across a history text book taught in the Anglo-Bengali College, Allahabad, which
claimed that three thousand Brahmins had committed suicide as Tipu wanted to
convert them forcibly into the fold of Islam. The author was a very famous scholar,
Dr.Har Prasad Shastri, head of the department of Sanskrit at Kolkata University.
(Tipu Sultan (1750-99), who ruled over the South Indian state of Mysore (1782-99),
is one of the most heroic figures in Indian history. He died on the battle field, fighting
the British.)

Was it true? Dr. Pande wrote immediately to the author & asked him for the source on
which he had based this episode in his text-book. After several reminders, Dr. Shastri
replied that he had taken this information from the Mysore gazetteer. So Dr. Pande
requested the Mysore university vice- chancellor, Sir Brijendra Nath Seal, to verify
for him Dr. Shastris statement from the gazetteer. Sir Brijendra referred his letter to
Prof. Srikantia who was then working on a new edition of the gazetteer. Srikantia
wrote to say that the gazetteer mentioned no such incident and, as a historian himself,
he was certain that nothing like this had taken place. Prof. Srikantia added that both
the prime minister & commander-in-chief of Tipu Sultan were themselves Brahmins.
He also enclosed a list of 136 Hindu temples which used to receive annual grants
from the sultans treasury.

It inspired that Shastri had lifted this story from Colonel Miles, History of Mysore,
which Miles claimed he had taken from a Persian manuscript in the personal library
of Queen Victoria. When Dr. Pande checked further, he found that no such
manuscript existed in Queen Victorias library.

FALSE HISTORY PROVIDED BY BRITISHERS

British historian Sir Henry Elliot remarked that Hindus had not left any account
which could unable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule
had on them? Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight-volume
history of India with contributions from British historians (1867). His history claimed
Hindus were slain for disputing with Mohammedans, generally prohibited from
worshipping and taking out religious processions , their idols were mutilated , their
temples were destroyed , they were forced into conversion & marriages , & were
killed & massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants. Thus Sir Henry, & scores of other
empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu verses Muslim history of
India, & their lies became a history.

Lord Curzon(Governor General of India 1895-99 & Viceroy 1899-1904(d.1925) was

told by the secretary of state for India, George Francis Hamilton , that they should
so plan the educational textbooks that the differences between community &
community are further strengthened. Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884-88), was
advised by the secretary of state in London that the division of religious feelings is
greatly to our advantage , & that he expected some good as a result of your
committee of inquiry on Indian education & on teaching material . We have
maintained our power in India by playing off one part against the other, the
secretary of state for India reminded yet another viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63), &
we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore to prevent all having a common
feeling?

MYTH RELATED TO DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES

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 Quran prohibits any Muslim to impose
his will on a non-Muslim by stating that There is no compulsion in religion.(Surah
al-Baqarah 2.256). The Surah al-Kafirun clearly states: To you is your religion & to
me is mine. It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his
caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates
of the Quran.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (introduction
to history) used in Bengal for the 5th & 6th graders states: If Aurangzeb had the
intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have
been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated
huge estates for use as temple sites & support thereof in Benaras, Kashmir &
elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant.

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. His
administration made handsome donation to temple of Pandharpur seat of deity
Vitthal. Historian the late D.G Godse has claimed that trustees of Vitthal temple were
more worried about marauding Maratha armies than the mughal one.

The proof of Aurangzebs land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Varanasi can
easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook
(Etihash Parichaya) reads: During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single
Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious
activities. Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of
Aurangzebs fifty years reign & observed that everyone was free to serve & worship
god in his own way.

The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb is the most reviled of all the Muslim rulers in India.
He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples & oppressor of Hindus, & a
fundamentalist too. As chairman of the Allahabad municipality (1948-53), Dr.
Bishambhar Nath Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests.
One of them had filed in evidence some firmans (royal orders) to prove that
Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his
temple. Might they not be fake, Dr. Pande thought in view of Aurangzebs fanatically
anti-Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a
distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic & Persian. He was also a
Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents & declared they were genuine firmans
issued by Aurangzeb. For Dr.Pande this was a new image of Aurangzeb, so he wrote
to the chief priests of the various important temples, all over the country, requesting
photocopies of any firman issued by aurangzeb that they may have in their
possession. The response was overwhelming; he received copies of firmans of
Aurangzeb from the great temples of Mahakaleshwara, Ujjain, Balaji temple,
Chitrakut, Umanand temple Gauhati, & the Jain temple of Shatrunjai & other temples
& gurudwaras scattered over northern India. These firmans were issued from 1659 to
1685AD. Though these are only few instances of Aurangzeb generous attitude
towards Hindus & their temples, they are enough to show that what the historians
have written about him was biased & 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 Aurangzebs
benevolent treatment of non-Muslims.

Aurangzeb did not indiscriminately destroy Hindu temples, as he is commonly

believed to have done so, & that he directed the destruction of temples only when
faced with insurgency. This was almost certainly the case with the Keshava Rai
temple in the Mathura region, where the Jats rose in rebellion & yet even this policy
of reprisal may have been modified, as Hindu temples in the Deccan were seldom
destroyed. The image of Aurangzeb as an idol breaker may not with stand scrutiny,
since there is evidence to show that, like his predecessors, he continued to confer land
grants or jagirs (large parcel of agricultural lands) upon Hindu temples, such as the
Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Varanasi,
Umanand temple in Gauhati & numerous others. He did not harm to the famous Alura
temples (a huge complex of Ancient temples) in his conquest of Deccan.

DEMOLITION OF KASHI VISHWANATH TEMPLE

Dr. Pandes research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights & welfare
of his non-Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs
received full justice against their Muslims respondents &, if guilty, Muslims were
given punishment as necessary.
One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath
temple in Varanasi. That was a fact, but Dr. Pande unraveled the reason for it. While
Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his
retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi,
have a dip in the Ganges & pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily
agreed. Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis
made journey to the palkis. They took their dip in the Ganges & went to the
Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja (worship) all the Ranis
returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the
temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.

When Aurangzeb came to know about this, he was very much enraged. He sent his
senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh (the
elephant headed god) which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the
statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror
they found the missing Rani dishonored & crying deprived of all her ornaments. The
basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanaths seat.

The Raja demanded salutary action, & Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred
precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place,
the temple be razed to the ground & the Mahant (head priest) be arrested &
punished.

EMPLOYMENT FOR NON-MUSLIMS

Aurangzeb has often been accused of closing the doors of official employment on the
Hindus, but a study of the list of his officers shows this is not so. Actually there were
more Hindu officers under him than under any other Mughal emperor. Though this
was primarily due to a general increase in the number of officers, it shows that there
was no ban on the employment of Hindus.

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 decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The emperor
refuted them by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic
law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions. During Aurangzebs
long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Jay Singh, Raja
Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy & Rasik Lal
Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in
Aurangzebs administration, Jaswant Singh & Jay Singh, were Hindus. Other notable
Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were
Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, & Achalaji & Arjuji. One wonders if
Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high
positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him
& removed him from his throne?
Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus
were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had 14 Hindu
Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high
officials in his court (Ref : Mughal Govn.). But this fact is somewhat less known.

If Aurangzeb was so ferocious a communalist, why is it, some historians have asked,
that the number of Hindu employed in positions of eminence under Aurangzebs reign
rose from 24.5% in the time of his father Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of
his own rule?

JIZYA AND OTHER TAXES

Now let us deal with Aurangzebs imposition of the Jizya tax which had drawn severe
criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign
of Akbar & Jahangir & that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the
subject of Aurangzebs Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point
out that Jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-
bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want
to volunteer for the defence of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from
non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from
women & neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For
payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim Government to protect
the life, property & 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.

It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) & ushr (10% of agricultural
products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a
certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah & khums. None of
these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita
collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to
Aurangzebs credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually
mentioned. In his book Mughal administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost
historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzebs reign in power,
nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50
million rupees from the state treasury.

Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished 80 types of taxes, no one
thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one (jizya), & not heavy at
all, people began to show their displeasure.

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks & historic accounts
in western countries have yet to admit their error & set the record straight.

SOME IMPORTANT POINTS RELATED TO CHARACTER OF AURANGZEB

Just think a man such, character, caliber that cares and concern for public can be
unjust, cruel. Just imagine a king such cruel & unjust to the majority could rule a
huge country, for about 50 years, where high majority members serving highest
position & comprising 80% in the military.

He was so pious best character person noble & just. You cannot find a single one in
the present leaders.

His personal piety however is undeniable. He led an exemplary simple pious life. He
cares for the royal treasury as public treasury & for public. The present leaders
considers public treasury to personal treasury.

Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb did consider the royal treasury as a trust of the
citizens of his empire & did not use it for personal expenses.

He was Subedar in Deccan & Gujarat. He didnt destroy any temple. His period was
peaceful & prosperous, called golden period.

Despite more than two decades he campaign as subedar in Deccan & Gujarat there is
no record of temple destruction in the region. He continued to confer Jagirs to Hindu
temples. His period was golden period & relatively peaceful, prosperous in his tenure.

He was maligned that he was against art & music. He was the accomplished musician
playing VEENA. The largest numbers of books on classical Indian music in Persian
were written during Aurangzebs reign. He banned all nude dances.

Aurangzeb cruelty as mere rumors or at best lies invented by Hindu bigotry & British
historians who wanted to weaken India by their divide & rule policy. Bankim
Chatterjee, who served his whole life to British government, was a tool of this
conspiracy and dividing.

He was so concern about duties; he did not miss prayer during the ongoing war.

He spread his prayer rug & prayed in the midst of battle ground, brought him much
fame. He stopped all bad things, which today everybody want. Why government
banned bar balayien, dances of Rakhi Sawant & Mallaika. Why sattabazi is illegal?

Today we pay more than 66% of our income as taxes. The present government is
worse than Aurangzebs.

He forbade sati, drinking, gambling, prostitution, devadasies, dancing in brothels,

ashrams & mutts. He put jizya to Dhimmis (non-believers) which around 2.5% like
Muslim pay their Zakat, 2.5% eligible person should pay. The old, women, children
were exempted. Only the young man who didnt want to serve in the army should pay
the jiziya. Indian parliament still hung the bill of Lok Pal, whereas Aurangzeb the
only ruler who appointed Lok Pal to control corruption in Judiciary, Finance & other
departments.

He appointed Muhattasib (lok pal) censors to control injustice & atrocities. The
Brahmans & higher caste Hindus now found themselves facing Islamic law courts for
the atrocities on lower castes Hindus.

He was best knowledgeable & brilliant administrator. He never tolerates injustice. He

was a brave soldier & best commander in the field. He was the only who control
Deccan & Bijapur dynasty. Under his leadership, in particular, he led Mughal forces
in the conquest of the Deccan, seizing first the Golkunda & Bijapur Sultanates, &
then attacking the Maratha chieftains. He annexed all the Maratha territories. He left
Shivaji because he was no threat to his kingdom.

These are the few evidence of his greatness. The Brahmans & higher caste were
subject to Aurangzeb justice. They maligned & created, invented, fabricated these &
all other baseless stories.

This is all about emperor Aurangzeb. I am confident that when you will go through
all these facts & figures your perception towards this Mughal emperor will change.
Our medieval history consists of various false stories. Our nation had never seen an
emperor like Aurangzeb. I need your feedback about this article. What should I do to
change the perception of people? I want to know merits, demerits, area of scope &
any suggestion related to this article from your side.

Source: http://www.yoindia.com/shayariadab/inspirational-stories-and-real-life-
incidences/emperor-aurangzeb-t98568.0.html
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Deoband Online - Blogs

o WHY APEX COURTS PROPOSAL ABOUT BABARI MOSQUE NOT

PRACTICAL?

o Obituary: Hadhrat Maulana Shaikh Abdul Haq Azami (1928-2016)

o Darul Uloom Deoband's Fatwa About Maulana Saad Kandhlawi of Tabligh

o Muslims Cannot Surrender Their Claim On BABRI MASJID

o Muslim Womens Empowerment; UCC, Triple Talaq and Polygamy: Myths vs.
Facts

o The Big question: who will decide the boundaries of madrasa curriculum?

o National Elocution Competition in English for Madrasa Graduates

o Book Review: 'Life and Thoughts of Hujjat al-Islam Imam Muhammad Qasim al-
Nanawtawi'

o Prophet Muhammad needs to be understood as a compassionate human being, a

well-wisher of all

o Open Letter to Jamiat Elders from the graduates of Darul Uloom Deoband and
Markazul Maarif

Categories

All
Beliefs
Comparative Religions
Education
Eidul Adhha
Fiqh
General
Hadith
Hajj
Islamic
Morals
Muharram
News
Prayers
Quran
Qurbani
Ramadan
Society
Ulama
Women

Archives

March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
October 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
March 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
July 2012
June 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
May 2010
February 2010
December 2009
May 2009
April 2008
February 2008
May 2007
December 2006
November 2006
February 2006

View My Stats

Powered by
http://www.deoband.net/blogs/emperor-aurangzeb-truths-about-a-ruler

2.0

READ

WRITE

ADVERTISE WITH US

Login

Politics IndiaFollow

Dr Carlos Zaqariah Nov 16, 2015 14:03 IST Follow

Aurangzeb: The Most Indulgent And Unbiased King Of

INDIA Became Victim Of "Biased Historians"
Turk Mashkoor and 4 other(s) votedup this story.

Voteup Share

Abul Muzaffar Muhi-ud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (14 October 1618 20

February 1707), commonly known as Aurangzeb Alamgir and by his imperial title
Alamgir. and simply referred to as Aurangzeb was the sixth Mughal Emperor and
ruled over most of the Indian subcontinent during some parts of his reign. His reign
lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707.

First of all in this article I am not going to discuss on kashi vishwanath

mandir & jizyah tax because there are so many articles already out there
with valid proofs against this fabricated history.

When historians look back at Muslim rule in India, their perspective greatly shapes
the way they present historical characters. Some people are seen as great and
enlightened leaders, while others are ruthless tyrants. No one is more controversial
than the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir, who ruled from 1658 to 1707. By
Hindus and Sikhs, he is seen as a cruel and ruthless emperor that restricted
freedoms and imposed a religiously intolerant regime on the people. This view has
been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and
colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against
one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal,
magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted. He was a devoted, religious-
minded and compassionate king.
This article will look past the rhetoric about Aurangzeb to understand him
as a Muslim ruler in a Hindu-dominated country.

>>>Mythification and fabricated history vs Facts<<<

In sharp contrast to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's image of a temple

destroyer in history books is fabricated Few things we must need to know
about him which doesnt show by biased historians.
Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open
disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee
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.
Aurangzeb gave temples grants, land: Historian "During one of his military
campaigns, Aurangzeb and his army had spent time near the temple. During the
stay, he not only visited the temple but also offered grant and land for its
maintenance. This fact is mentioned on the 'Dharma Dand' (religious pillar) situated
on the temple premises," Kesherwani told TOI.

Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims
even questioned his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. Most
Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were
favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen
Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu
high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat
less known.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya

(Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th standards states If
Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques,
there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India.

During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace
Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities. (p. 138) Alexander
Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzebs fifty year
reign and observed that everyone was free to serve and worship God in his own
way.

>>>The bitter truth<<<

It should be noted that Hindu Kings were not far behind in attacking and damaging
temples when it became a political necessity for their rule or for the lust of wealth.
Retreating Maratha armies destroyed the temple of Srirangtatanm Parmar kings
destroyed Jain temples. A Hindu king called Shashank cut off the Bodhi tree where
Lord Gautam Buddha got his Nirvana.(By Ram Puniyani)

>>>The Ordinary King with an Idea of Compassion and Justice for all<<<

Except the Bibi ka maqbara in Aurangabad (that was commissioned by Aurangzeb

and built by his son), the Moti Masjid and two outer defense walls of Red Fort in
Delhi, Aurangzeb did not build any monuments during his entire reign as an
emperor. He did not believe in spending money frivolously unlike his predecessors.
He was extremely frugal with his own expenses. He made hand written copies of
Quran to manage his expenses.

During Aurangzeb's reign when the Srinagar situated Jami Masjid caught fire, the
emperor was more worried about the safety of the Chinar trees (growing around the
Jami Masjid area) than of the mosque structure. His rationale being - the mosque
can be re-built in a couple of years but Chinar trees will take several long decades
to grow. (G.M.D. Sufi's volumes I , kashmiri historian ).

Aurangzeb did not hesitate to destroy the Jama Masjid in Golconda as Nawab
Tanashah refused to pay him tribute for three consecutive years and hid his wealth
underneath a mosque, which was damaged by Aurangzeb to recover his dues.

Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and during his reign, the Mughal Empire
temporarily reached its greatest extent. During his lifetime, victories in the south
expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he
ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100150 million
subjects, with an annual yearly tribute of 38,624,680 in 1690 (the highest in
the world at that time).

In accordance with his will: Three hundred and five rupees, from the wages of
copying the Quran, are in my purse for personal expenses. Distribute them to the
poor and needy on the day of my death , do not spend it on my shroud and other
necessitates.

>>>Some Important and lesser known facts<<<

Copy of original farman in persian and its translation in Hindi is still present in
Museum at BHU (Banaras Hindu university).(You can find the original picture of
farman at the bottom of this article)

>>>Social common sense<<<

As for conversion of Hindus to Islam, one must be very honest and practical while
dealing with the allegations of forced conversion. Aurangzebs empire was a huge
one geographically speaking and if he wanted to Convert these Non Muslims to
Islam using Money and Power of the sword then the Hindu population would never
have been more than four times of the current Muslim Population. Thus the
allegation of forced conversions is found to be mythical rather than factual. Some
biased historians have added more fuel to the raging fire by trying to substantiate
those unfounded claim which in turn can be safely classified as LIES.

By: Dr Carlos zaqariah

Copy of the original farman in Persian and translation in hindi in the museum of
BHU(Banaras Hindu University)

Tweet (0)

Share (0)

Share

Reddit
Write your response

(4)

#indian

#history

vitaportal.ru
Ram Puniyani Sep 22, 2015 13:18 IST

Looking at the past: Jaundiced views

Dr Carlos Zaqariah votedup this story

Voteup share
Using the jaundiced version of the past is one of the biggest tools of communal
forces. The prevalence of hatred towards other communities is rooted in the
versions of past, which are part carry over from the past legacy introduced by
British and part constructed by the communalists, who in turn select the incidents
and distort them in such a way so as to fit in their scheme of things. The same
incident may be interpreted from opposite angles by competing communal ideology.
This view of past, at one level, glorifies the kings of ones own religion, while looks
down upon the kings of other religion.

So, for example, currently there is an assertion to call Rana Pratap as great. Why,
and how does a king become great? The parameters differ.
www.flickr.com

Shivaji
Sometimes, in the same region, the interpretation of king varies with different
castes and different religions, and this is so much true about Maharashtras Shivaji.
For some, he is the one who is devoted to cows and Brahmins, while for others, he is
the one concerned about welfare of rayyat (farmers).

The most important distortion of presenting a king in the identity of his religion is
that the underlying system of authoritarianism and feudal exploitation gets
undermined, hidden from the popular perception. Also, the very concept that
kingdoms did not have the concept of citizenship and nation state also goes for the
toss, and the claim of origin of nationalism starts taking root from the first king of
that religion, like Mohammad Bin Kasim being regarded as the founder of Islamic
nationalism.

Here, Hindu communalists claim to be a nation state from the Anaadi Kaal (past
beyond boundaries), irrespective of what might have been the pattern of social
organization, tribe, clan, kingdom etc., at the time.

www.thesun.co.uk

Aurangzeb road in Delhi

In this again, some kings become good and some bad. As such, all of them are
sitting on the top of the system of exploitation of the peasantry, and prevalence of
all the norms like caste hierarchy and patriarchy, which cannot be accepted today.
The construction of Hindu communalism roots itself on demonization of Muslim
kings, and Aurangzeb seems to be leading the pack of such villains in the
perceptions prevailing in Indian part of the subcontinent.

Guided by these unshakable perceptions, one Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member
of Parliament (MP) called for the change of the name of Aurangzeb Road in Delhi, to
APJ Abdul Kalam Road.

This was done in total violation of prevailing practice of how the roads are named. It
was upheld by the self-proclaimed messiah of anti corruption movement, Arvind
Kejriwal. The name changing was supposed to be an exercise in righting the wrongs
of history! What has been right in the history is another matter of infinite debate,
and the answer will depend on which side of social ideology one is.

What is right from the point of view of poor farmers, or dalits or Adivasis
or women is a million dollar question. Glorying of kings, barring those who
stood up to protect the social interests of the downtrodden, is very
questionable.

All said and done Aurangzeb has been demonized to the extent that very mention of
his name sends a shock to most of those who have imbibed the prevalent notions
about him. Can one shake off the perception about his being so power hungry and
that he killed his own brother Dara Shikoh for the sake of power? The simple fact is
the same thing applies to many kings. Emperor Ashok killed many of his cousins for
coming to power. As late as in recent times, the killing of Birendra Singh by his
brother King Gyanendra is on the same lines.

The conspiracies in the royal families have been part of the power structure of
kingdoms all over.

What about Aurangzebs goal of converting the people to Islam on the

point of the sword?

To begin with, Islam did not spread due to the Muslim kings; mostly, it was to
escape the caste structure that many shudras embraced Islam. Swami
Vivekananda, in his collected works Volume VIII, Page330, points out that conversion
to Islam was to escape the caste systems atrocities. Islam also spread due to social
interaction, as in Mewat and Malabar Coast.

What about Guru Gobinds sons being beheaded by Aurangzeb, was it an

attempt to conversion, or an attempt to humiliate the defeated king?

This example cited in this case is that of a king who was defeated in battle, and so,
when he sought pardon, this insulting condition was put. Alexander Hamilton, a
British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzebs fifty-year reign, and
observed that everyone was free to serve and worship god in his own way.
If Aurangzeb and other Muslims kings were here for the goal of conversions, in the
whole eight hundred years of their rule, most of the population would have become
Muslims.

And how come so many court officials in their courts, who had high designations,
continued to retain their Hindu faith? They would have been ideal subjects for
conversions.

What about the dreaded Jazia?

twadl.com

mosque built on demolished Kashi Vishwanath temple

As per Prof. Harbans Mukhia, scholar of medieval history, Aurangzeb imposed jazia
in 1669; well, 21 years after his coming to power. The taxation policies of different
kings had been changing from time to time.

While able bodied Hindu males were to pay jazia, zakat was the tax to be paid by
Muslims. There were many other taxes which Aurangzeb had lifted also. Jazia has
got stuck in popular perception as a sign of Aurangzeb being anti Hindu.

Then what about the destruction of Vishwanth temple and building of

mosque on the top of that?

There are some temples which were destroyed by him, and some others supported
with grants. A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu temple, located north
of Chitrakut, Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the emperor
Aurangzeb himself. His administration made handsome donations to temple of
Pandharpur, the seat of the deity, Vithoba.

theindianmuslim.wordpress.com

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut
Balaghat

The great temples of Mahakaleshwara, Ujjain, Balaji temple, Chitrakut, Umanand

temple Gauhati, and the Jain temple of Shatrunjai and gurudwaras scattered over
northern India also received his grants. These firmans (court orders) were issued
from 1659 to 1685 AD. Dr. Vishambharnath Pandey did collect number of firmans of
Aurangzeb, where he gives the grants to Hindu temples.

So how does one explain the contradiction? It is simple - due to factors

related to power, some temples were destroyed. To keep the subjects in
good humor, temples were also supported, and to eliminate the sources of
rebellions concentrating in temples, others were destroyed as well.

The British must be having the last laugh!

The history-writing which they introduced was giving the king only a single identity -
that of religion. Hindu and Muslim communal streams picked it up and modified it to
suit their political goals of polarization of communities around them. The additional
factor was that, the British also had to win over the loyalty of the subjects from the
earlier rulers, the Muslim-Mughal kings. Hence the formulation that they have come
here as liberators from the cruel Muslim rule. What this meant for the sub continent
is too well known by now, with Shahshi Tharoors Oxford lecture going viral and
telling us the extent of plunder done by these liberators, who claim they came here
as part of civilizing mission of the east.

Akbar and Aurangzeb are presented in contracting colors, Dara Shikoh in

yet another hue. All of them do represent the different shades of the
personalities of the kings, but kings they were, primarily the head of the
feudal system of society.

The name changing game is part of the communal agenda of divisive nationalism,
which feels the Emperor who ruled this part of the subcontinent for 49 long years
cannot have a road in his name.

Tweet (0)

Share (0)

Share

Reddit

Write your response

(0)

#JaundicedView

#NameChange

#aurangzeb

#hindu

#muslim
 #india

#maharashtra

#balaji

#history

aurangzeb.info

Hitesh Rangra May 14, 2015 21:30 IST

Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records

Krishna Rao and 1more votedup this story

Voteup share

Aurangzeb was one among many who destroyed thousands of Hindus temples. He
was the front-runner when it comes to demolition of temples. He issued specific
orders for the destruction of most holy Hindu sites, as well as a general order to
destroy Hindu temples.

Exhibit No. 2: Prince Dara Shukoh translating the Upanishads.

aurangzeb.info

Prince Dara Shukoh, the eldest son of Emperor Shah Jahan, was like his great
ancestor Akbar, a very liberal and enlightened Musalman and a true seeker of truth.
Akbar respected all religions Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Jainism,
Sikhism, etc., and gave their votaries complete religious freedom. He was ever keen
to discuss and understand their religious beliefs, practices and philosophy and, in
order to make the Musalmans familiar with the culture, and universal values,
philosophy and traditions of India, he had the great epics of India Ramayana and
Mahabharat translated into Persian. He also arranged for the translation of the
Atharvaveda.

Continuing the unfinished work of Emperor Akbar, Prince Dara Shukoh too, assisted
by the Indian scholars, translated Bhagvad Gita, Prabodha Chandrodaya (a
philosophical drama written in 1060 A.D.), and Yoga Vashishtha into Persian. He also
translated the Upanishadas, which are the fountain-head of Indian philosophy, with
the help of learned Pandits from Banaras, well versed in the Vedas and the
Upanishadas. The translation of the Upanishadas by him entitled Sirr-i-Akbar (The
Grand Secret) was completed on the 28th June 1657, shortly before the
commencement of the War of Succession, which he lost to his crafty and
unscrupulous brother, Aurangzeb who ruled India from 1659-1707.
In the painting, Dara is shown translating the Upanishadas, assisted by Indian
scholars.

Though Communists argue that the motive behind destruction of Keshava Rai
Temple was not against Hinduism, but to plunder the wealth of temple, but the
actual picture was indeed very different. A sizeable number of historical references
were ignored or suppressed by historians for reasons unknown.

Exhibit No. 6: Keshava Rai Temple. "Even to look at a temple is a sin for a
Musalman", Aurangzeb. Umurat-i-Hazur Kishwar-Kashai Julus (R.Yr.) 9, Rabi II 24 / 13
October 1666.
aurangzeb.info

http://www.aurangzeb.info/

It was reported to the Emperor (Aurangzeb) that in the temple of Keshava Rai at
Mathura, there is a stone railing presented by Bishukoh (one without dignity i.e.
Prince Dara, Aurangzeb's elder brother). On hearing of it, the Emperor observed, "In
the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a temple and this
Bishukoh has installed this kathra (barrier railing). Such an act is totally unbecoming
of a Musalman. This railing should be removed (forthwith). His Majesty ordered
Abdun Nabi Khan to go and remove the kathra, which is in the middle of the temple.
The Khan went and removed it. After doing it he had audience. He informed that the
idol of Keshava Rai is in the inner chamber. The railing presented by Dara was in
front of the chamber and that, formerly, it was of wood. Inside the kathra used to
stand the sevakas of the shrine (pujaris etc.) and outside it stood the people
(khalq).

Note:

Aurangzeb's solemn observation recorded in his own Court's bulletin that "In the
religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a temple" and therefore,
presentation of a stone railing to Keshava Rai temple by Dara was "totally
unbecoming of a Musalman" casts serious doubts about a few instances of religious
toleration and temple grants attributed to him. Only two years before his long
awaited death, he had ordered (1st January 1705) to demolish the temple of
Pandharpur and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the
temple It was done. Akhbarat, 49-7, cited in J.N. Sarkar, Aurangzeb, Vol.III, 189).

For more comprehensive records of Hindu temples' destruction, please read "Let the
Mute Witnesses Speak"

Exhibit No. 7: Demolition of Kalka's Temple - I. Siyah Waqa'i- Darbar Regnal Year 10,
Rabi I, 23 / 3 September 1667.
aurangzeb.info

"The asylum of Shariat (Shariat Panah) Qazi Abdul Muqaram has sent this arzi to the
sublime Court: a man known to him told him that the Hindus gather in large
numbers at Kalka's temple near Barahapule (near Delhi); a large crowd of the
Hindus is seen here. Likewise, large crowds are seen at (the mazars) of Khwaja
Muinuddin, Shah Madar and Salar Masud Ghazi. This amounts to bidat (heresy) and
deserves consideration. Whatever orders are required should be issued.

Saiyid Faulad Khan was thereupon ordered (by the Emperor) to send one hundred
beldars to demolish the Kalka temple and other temples in its neighbourhood which
were in the Faujdari of the Khan himself; these men were to reach there post haste,
and finish the work without a halt".

Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them gives the complete description of

thousands of temple destroyed by Mughals.

Exhibit No. 9: General Order for the Destruction of Temples. (9th April 1669)
aurangzeb.info
The Lord Cherisher of the Faith learnt that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and
especially at Benaras, the Brahmin misbelievers used to teach their false books in
their established schools, and their admirers and students, both Hindu and Muslim,
used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire their
vile learning. His Majesty, eager to establish Islam, issued orders to the governors of
all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels, and, with the
utmost urgency, put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of
these unbelievers.

Tweet (0)

Share (0)

Share

Reddit

Write your response

(5)

#aurangzeb

Trending on #JaundicedView

Dr Carlos Zaqariah votedup Ram Puniyani's "Looking at the past: Jaundiced views" Nov
16, 2015
 Ram Puniyanipublished "Looking at the past:
Jaundiced views" inReligion and PoliticsSep 22, 2015

https://www.saddahaq.com/looking-at-the-past-jaundiced-views