What's new

RSS will destroy Hinduism: Poet Ashok Vajpeyi

People did not embrace those rulers. You are speaking as if the people were given a choice and they opted for these rulers.
Its impossible to establish rule for such long period without majority accepting the rule and not showing any strong resistance against it.
When you run out of arguments, run back to caste oppression in Hinduism. Both British and Islamic rulers have used this modus operandi to divide Hindus and Pakistanis follow their lead in this. No surprises here.
Look at your history man. Hindus were weak and divided because of which invaders did not struggle to conquer this land. This caste system and pulling legs of each others was common in Indian society and prince/raja fighting each others for land/power and oppressing those weaker who were under their rule and you have been oppressing your own kind and taking revenge of invaders from them because they share same religion
 
Last edited:
Ordinary hindus were neither targetted during mughals or tipu's reign, otherwise there would have been large scale anarchy. Same during british period too. Its just modern hindu interpretation of what happened then.

Read the below links and respond if you still believe they were not tyrants.

History of Muslim Rule in India – Mahmud Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb

History of Muslim Rule in India – Mahmud Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb

tipu sultan - a secular internationalist, not a bigot
 
Could you provide examples of pro Hindu policies of the BJP governments?
Modi Himself said that he is Hindu nationalist.Politics of BJP is exclusive and divisive. Read this
A lynching over beef-eating is part of a rising tide of Hindu nationalism in Modi’s India - The Washington Post
Are Hindu nationalists a danger to other Indians? - BBC News

Funny you are saying this but now tell us how many Hindus were in their government ,civil administration and in military ?

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 were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya 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 and 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 and removed him from his throne?


During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya 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 and 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 and 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 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.

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 Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and 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 Qur'an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 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 and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and 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. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook 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." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition ofthe jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's 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 defense 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, and 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 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.

It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘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, and 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 Auranzeb's 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 Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.

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

Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?
 
Last edited:
Its impossible to establish rule for such long period without majority accepting the rule and not showing any strong resistance against it.

You are looking at history through your eyes hence you trying to conclude that there was no tyranny as there was no revolt by the Hindus.

Hindu way of thinking is very different to other religions. Hindus would not revolt even under tyranny. They would either conclude that

1) They did something wrong in their previous life hence god has punished them in this life

or

2) It is the responsibility of God to punish the tyrants and not theirs.

India through out all its thousands of years of History has never had any revolt.



Look at your history man. Hindus were weak and divided because of which invaders did not struggle to conquer this land. This caste system and pulling legs of each others was common in Indian society and prince/raja fighting each others for land/power and oppressing those weaker who were under their rule and you have been oppressing your own kind and taking revenge of invaders from them because they share same religion

Hindu kings lost to Muslim invaders as they were not united. The same is the case today where Muslims vote for specific parties based on the advise of their Imams while Hindu votes get divided.

Elections 2014: Shahi Imam Bukhari endorses Congress, TMC | Zee News
 
Last edited:
You are looking at history through your eyes hence you trying to conclude that there was no tyranny as there was no revolt by the Hindus.

Hindu way of thinking is very different to other religions. Hindus would not revolt even under tyranny. They would either conclude that

1) They did something wrong in their previous life hence god has punished them in this life

or

2) It is the responsibility of God to punish the tyrants and not theirs.

India through out all its thousands of years of History has never had any revolt.

Not sure what is your version of 'tyranny' ? As per Vasistha Samhita 3:11 'agnido garadas caiva sastra panir and confirmed by Manu Samhita 8 CCCL - atatayinam ayantam hanyad states that any of the 6 types of aggressors should be killed immediately

1) a poison giver,
2) one who sets fire to the house,
3) one who attacks with deadly weapons,
4) one who plunders riches,
5) one who occupies another's land, and
6) one who kidnaps a wife

Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 1: Observing the Armies on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra, Text 36.
 
why should you unite on basis of religion, unless you are minority
One, You're forgetting a fact that Hindus are a minority outside India. Lol
Two, caste is a barrier which has prevented Hindus from uniting.
Kill caste system- the root of all evils in Hindu society.
 
Not sure what is your version of 'tyranny' ? As per Vasistha Samhita 3:11 'agnido garads ciav sastra panir and confirmed by Manu Samhita 8 CCCL - atatayinam ayantam hanyad states that any of the 6 types of aggressors should be killed immediately

1) a poison giver,
2) one who sets fire to the house,
3) one who attacks with deadly weapons,
4) one who plunders riches,
5) one who occupies another's land, and
6) one who kidnaps a wife

Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 1: Observing the Armies on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra, Text 36.

Unfortunately, paying jizya was not one of them.
 
That police officer is muslim.

He is Muslim so he is wrong? LOL!!

Lol, a shameless false flagger who in all probability is a Daesh sympathizer is accusing the world's largest charitable organization of supporting terrorism

How many RSS b@stards sacrificed their lives during the 26/11 terrorist attack? Think wisely before replying because I am going to badly humiliate you here.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom