Aurangzeb gave temples grants, land: Historian

[Hindustani78]

We were the ones that taught you hindus to wash your *** with water. First and foremost. If you would like me to continue then I can.

Come on , stop it . India is land of many rivers and the ancient dwellings have been always around the rivers.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Come on , stop it . India is land of many rivers and the ancient dwellings have been always around the rivers.

He will not be able to reply. At least for some time if not forever... in this avatar at least.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

ALLAHABAD: In sharp contrast to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's image of a temple destroyer in history books, an Allahabad-based historian has claimed that he had offered lavish grants and land to the ancient Someshwar Mahadev temple on the banks of Sangam in Arail.

Historian and principal of Serveshwari Degree College Pradeep Kesherwani made this claim based on certain historical facts. "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.

"The pillar has 15 sentences in Sanskrit inscribed on it mentioning, 'The ruler of the country visited the temple in 1674 and gave heavy grants to the temple, both in form of land and money'," said Kesherwani, lamenting that regular use of vermilion on the pillar, situated near Lord Hanuman's idol, had made the inscription illegible.

He said the fact also finds mention in the writings of former Allahabad mayor Vishamber Nath Pandey, who later became the governor of Odisha. "Speaking in Rajya Sabha on July 27, 1977, Pandey informed the House that during his tenure as chairman of Allahabad Nagar Palika, a dispute over the temple came before him. One of the parties presented documents regarding grants by Aurangzeb, both in terms of land and money. The matter was later referred to a committee headed by Justice TB Sapru. The committee sought documents from all temples that received 'jagir' (land) or money as donation from Aurangzeb," Kesherwani said.

He said that several temples, including Maha Kaleshwar temple of Ujjain, Balaji temple of Chitrakoot, Umanand temple of Guwahati, Jain temples of Saranjay and some temples of South India, produced such testimonials before the committee headed by Justice Sapru.

Another historian of Allahabad University, Prof Yogeshwar Tiwari, supported the contention. "Akbar too provided grant to the temple to show his 'praja' (common man) that he was the ruler of everyone. Patronizing Hindu temples was one such act. As far as Someshwar Mahadev temple is concerned, Aurangzeb might have given or even hiked the grants," Tiwari said.

Aurangzeb gave temples grants, land: Historian - The Times of India

History at best tends to be full of contradictions but in South Asia too often myth is presented as history. The "pillar has 15 sentences in Sanskrit inscribed on it mentioning, 'The ruler of the country visited the temple in 1674 and gave heavy grants to the temple, both in form of land and money" Great we have solid proof. Although when I read this bit I thought if this was inscribed in stone why has everybody walked past this piller and not read what it say's until or professor came along.

But then it goes on to say "made the inscription illegible". Right so how on earth did you manage to read this then? Oh right you did not read it but are relying on tale told by somebody else.

Give me a break ...

 

[SarthakGanguly]

History at best tends to be full of contradictions but in South Asia myth is presented as history. If the "pillar has 15 sentences in Sanskrit inscribed on it mentioning, 'The ruler of the country visited the temple in 1674 and gave heavy grants to the temple, both in form of land and money" Great we have proof. Although when I read this bit I thoughr if this was inscribed why has everybody walked past this piller not read what it say's until or professor came along.

But then it goes on to say "made the inscription illegible". Right so how on earth did you manage to read this then? Oh right you did not read it but are relying on tale told by somebody else.

Give me a break ...

LOL

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Aurangzeb was the MOST evil man ever born in this world

 

[[Bregs]]

Aurangzeb laid the foundation of intolerance in India by demoloshing Kashi Vishwanath and Shri Krishna janam bhoomi temples, before his rule there were no communal tensions

 

[Manindra]

And where are those Temples ?

 

[waz]

He persecuted the Sufi Fakirs and Sheikhs. He is no hero of mine and never will be.

 

[Dubious]

History at best tends to be full of contradictions but in South Asia too often myth is presented as history. The "pillar has 15 sentences in Sanskrit inscribed on it mentioning, 'The ruler of the country visited the temple in 1674 and gave heavy grants to the temple, both in form of land and money" Great we have solid proof. Although when I read this bit I thought if this was inscribed in stone why has everybody walked past this piller and not read what it say's until or professor came along.

But then it goes on to say "made the inscription illegible". Right so how on earth did you manage to read this then? Oh right you did not read it but are relying on tale told by somebody else.

Give me a break ...

1) it is engraved in Sanskrit like 99% of Muslims can read Arabic but have no clue what they read many indians can prob read Sanskrit but cant really decode it...
2) There are ways how archaeologists can read OLD RUINS even though 90% of letters are illegible for normal people!

Plus its an article from TOI!

 

[tested]

again in reality I see quite the opposite to the teaching when I see the actions of Hindu's against the minorities there is a big laundry list of acts committed by Hindu mobs as well. the communal riots the violence during civil disturbance ,disobedience, partition etc to name the few. the similar actions by Muslims get branded as "Islamic" and problem with the faith .. but its not the case when Hindu mobs burn churches or Muslim homes ..BBC reported Hindus killing people based on the names of their victims during Gujrat riots. had the roles been reversed then Muhammad and Quran would have been blamed.. yes or no?

I cant disagree with your post.
However the case is also that the Hindu mobs are doing it not for religion but for political/monetary gains. Which is why despite being the overwhelming majority, relatively there are fewer cases of physical violence against Muslims.

In case of Muslims, mostly they do it out of passion for the religion and less for reasons of political power and monetary gains.

It is this willingness or ruthlessness - to kill for religion - that needs to be inculcated in the Hindu masses.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I cant disagree with your post.
However the case is also that the Hindu mobs are doing it not for religion but for political/monetary gains..

I completely agree with you. and I request everyone to see these so called Muslims doing the same thing.. many such mobs and movements with an Islamic prefix were/ are opportunists (our religious parties are great example).
I am in no way justifying the actions of Muslims through the bad examples of other faiths and religion.. I am pointing at a common human nature where the faith of a person or a mob is just a coincidence.

I wish @Abingdonboy can back me up or might recall a news clip on BBC news few years back in Ireland where the sectarian tensions are always high and one community had to go through a path between the opposing sect (sorry dont recall who was Protestant and who was Catholic). now the path was walled with metal gauze and barbed wires and led to a primary school. as the white Irish parents of one faith moved their little boys (aged 3 to 7) through that path... just on the other side of the see through wall.... men and women were standing by cursing , abusing and hurling insults and throwing filth at the children and their parents were covering the ears of their girls and the girls were crying as they were walking to school. and it was a regular affair... here... it was not political but the abuse was based on religion. likewise when Cromwell ordered the massacre of Irish people he justified the killing of everyone regardless of age or gender he justified it on the bases of their faith.

the only true religious terrorists that I know existed in time were the Kharjites who justified every single action on the bases of Islam and their victims were Muslims including the companions of Muhammad PBUH.. the other ones I can closely relate to were Knight Templars who justified their chillingly brutal violence towards others specially Muslims and Jews on the bases of their Christian faith.

you might see that I am half agreeing half disagreeing with you, just thinking loud and kind of finding excuse for violence perpetrated by people who have Muslim faith. what I want to conclude is that propensity to violence might not necessarily be explained by Muslim faith.. it can be political as well.. the rise of Al Qaeda was purely political in nature.. against the presence of American bases in Arab peninsula and the close partnership of Arab monarchies with the west.. had it been someone else you might have called it a xenophobic, ethnic revolution or insurgency

 

[terry5]

We means you arabs????

 

[Hindustani78]

Murad Ali Baig on his new book Ocean of Cobras - The Hindu

Updated: September 17, 2015 20:38 IST
Murad Ali Baig talks about his fondness for writing on various subjects and how horoscopes played a key part in Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh's fight for the kingdom.
There have been countless entries on Aurangzeb being a tyrant, of him breaking Mughal ties with Sanskrit, of him being a temple destroyer or eroding the multiculturalism of the country. Scholar Audrey Truschke’s upcoming book, Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court, dispels this myth, citing Aurangzeb as a misunderstood figure. Murad Ali Baig doesn’t quite agree with Audrey’s opinion. In his words, Aurangzeb was “a stubborn, vengeful, vindictive person,” and his latest book Ocean of Cobras traces the life of Aurangzeb’s elder, oft-forgotten brother Dara Shikoh and their battle of succession for their father, Shah Jahan’s throne.

You’ve written on subjects — a lot of diverse subjects.

It’s a matter of following your heart. You have to believe that you cannot be a master of it all; you’ll have to believe that you’re always on a quest to learn, and if the learning is exciting, eventually you might become quite good. I was a student of History who drifted into advertising, marketing, driving tractors and ploughing fields… what’s that got to do with learning history? I had a wonderful teacher, Mohammed Amin, who had a passion for it, and made Mughal characters come to life. And I later realised that what was probably the most significant event in Mughal history was the battle of succession among the sons of Shah Jahan. It was not only the battle for the throne, but for the very soul of India. Because Dara was an eclectic, he was a person who believed in all faiths. He was so liberal-minded that he was a scholar of Sanskrit. He did the first translation of the Bhagavad Gita from Sanskrit into Persian, the first translation of 59 of the Upanishads and wrote a book called The Mingling of the Two Oceans to show how the Quran and the Brahma Sutras had so much in common. And it was this heresy that Aurangzeb eventually used against him and had him beheaded. The battle between Dara and Aurangzeb dates back to their childhood — they seemed to be almost star-crossed. I even got their horoscopes cast and found that they were indeed star-crossed.

How important were horoscopes to this book and the battle?

The Mughals believed in omens and premonitions. The title Ocean of Cobras has not been chosen just to shock people — it's chosen because of a very strange event of a whole flood of cobras in Bengal that had caused a great deal of concern to Shuja, Shikoh’s brother, who was the governor of Bengal. He sent a message to the soothsayers who looked into this. The Hindus said ‘oh snakes are very auspicious; it means many treasures’, while the Muslim stargazers had other points of view. It’s a story with lots of nuances — 80 per cent of the story is historically accurate. The fiction part is the narrator — I’ve invented a palace eunuch who fought for both Dara and Aurangzeb, and in the process you get both the characters sketched out, but you also learn about their life in court and the lives of the princesses, which very few people know of.

Dara Shikoh was known to be liberal-minded. If he had won the battle, would it have changed a lot for India?

In my opinion, it would’ve made a dramatic difference. In the time of Shah Jahan, Dara was able to study Sanskrit because there was a liberal atmosphere. But after Aurangzeb won, he created a tremendous hardening not only between Hindus and Muslims, but even between Sunnis and Shias. Now, if Dara had won, of course there’s a question, would Dara, who was a pampered prince, been tough enough to manage such a turbulent empire? It’s a question to which I don’t know the answer. Aurangzeb was down to the last 200 of his soldiers and he had the legs of the elephant chained so it wouldn’t retreat. And when Dara was betrayed by one of his own generals, he was made to get down from his elephant. Once people saw that the howdah was empty, they shouted ‘Dara is dead’, and his army turned and ran. If Dara had won, as he should have and nearly did, Hindu-Muslim relations would’ve been enormously better than they were in Aurangzeb’s time. I don’t think Aurangzeb was as bad as he is made out to be. He actually tried to be just to all his subjects but he was not a pleasant man. Even his 11 children used to tremble when they were in his presence. But he was a beautiful man in many ways.

Dara’s betrayal shares roots with the Mahabharata where Drona is betrayed in a similar fashion…

Betrayal has been a part of the history of many wars in India and in other countries. Look at the Battle of Bosworth; it was entirely because of betrayal. Aurangzeb, surprisingly, used betrayal and treachery unashamedly, but he always punished the traitors.

Research must’ve been a tough task. How did you sort what needed to go in and what had to be left out?

Six years. Fortunately, Mughal history has been quite well-written about. Some of the main sources — I have to confess that I haven’t gone through the Persian sources but there are some excellent translations — were thanks to people like Jadunath Sarkar, Muzaffar Alam, Francois Bernier, and also Babur’s memoirs. The writers were mostly Europeans because most of the artillery was done by them. The Mughals and the Rajputs (the most important part of the fighting arm of the Mughals) had no access to information in the palace, but they used to rely a lot on street gossip. One has to take their rather colourful accounts with a large pinch of salt. Having a Master’s degree in History, I think I knew what was exaggerated and what seemed probable, and in the form of a novel, I could take certain liberties in terms of giving my own spin to it.