Which Indian King/Historical event is most under appreciated in Indian History?

[SarthakGanguly]

@SarthakGanguly as Rabid Environmentalists what exactly did we do to the last Thermal Power Plant guy we got our hands on ?

I can't seem to remember whether we tickled his foot with a feather till delirium took over or did we accidentally turn on the burner as he was cleaning it from the inside ?

Ah it was the latter. But let me warn you - Bengalis don't die.

 

[temp1994]

Why should we crucify him now?
We all make our assumptions before stating something. And how we be so sure that we are right? Like in my case I hold Butshikan responsible for mass conversions in kashmir. But I could be wrong too.
Ppl in remote areas could be easily influenced by sufis,isnt that a possibility?

Yes they could. But the question is not whether all conversions by sword; It is whether majority were by Sword?


For this we do not need any woulda, coulda, shoulda theory. Comparison in percentage based on political dispensation would do.

I would take four examples for that.

Multan: (Sword/ Jiziya mode for 1200 years ) = 100% muslim.

Here Islam has remained unchallenged since it's birth ( for 1200 years ) except a brief interregnum of Sikh empire.People in this part has seen nothing but muslim rulers for as long as sense of time goes. The jaziya burden, which no one except most wealthy family could bear, along with preferential treatment of muslims and oppression of Hindus wiped off whole Hindu population of Pakistan.

Kashmir ( Sword mode) = 100% muslim.

Sikander butsikhan was 'mahmud ghaznivi who stayed' rather than leave after looting. His Islam or death edict is noted in both Muslim and Hindu literature of that time.

Rajasthan ( Sufi mode but with political patronage)= 8% muslim

Rajasthan was ruled by Rajput rulers who maintained a degree of autonomy from Delhi. This ensured that while Islam would not get direct patronage, but due to Rajputs being subservient to mughals, it would not be oppressed too.

Orissa ( no political patronage ) = 2% muslims ( that too Bengali immigrants )

In Orissa, Islam did not get any political patronage for significant amount of time.



Result is in front of you. Muslim population in all cases is directly proportional to time for which those states were under muslim rule. If Sufi dominant theory was correct, demographics would have shown otherwise.

 

[scorpionx]

Orissa ( no political patronage ) = 2% muslims ( that too Bengali immigrants )

Did Eaton assure in his article that mass conversion took place due to political patronage? I am too lazy to dive into details of his article, but is this what you "read"?

 

[Armstrong]

@scorpionx - An interesting and apparently well referenced article Letter from America: Untangling Myth of Emperor Aurangzeb’s Reign | Asian Tribune - Though I was never very interested in pre-Pakistan Movement South Asian History unless it was Ancient History so I'm gonna have to read up on this !

 

[scorpionx]

@scorpionx - An interesting and apparently well referenced article Letter from America: Untangling Myth of Emperor Aurangzeb’s Reign | Asian Tribune - Though I was never very interested in pre-Pakistan Movement South Asian History unless it was Ancient History so I'm gonna have to read up on this !

Oh, dear!! Yes. I have read these arguments in favor of him. But before we get stemrolled here lets get out of this thread first

 

[Levina]

@scorpionx - An interesting and apparently well referenced article Letter from America: Untangling Myth of Emperor Aurangzeb’s Reign | Asian Tribune - Though I was never very interested in pre-Pakistan Movement South Asian History unless it was Ancient History so I'm gonna have to read up on this !

Okay I know we are having a cold war but still I would like to thank you for that article for I always read ambivalent views about Aurangzeb.On one side he was shown as pious, one who used to sew caps to make money and never took a coin from royal treasures. While on the otherside he was projected as anti-hindu and very malevolent.

I have bookmarked that article.

So now....Get back to cold war mode!

 

[Armstrong]

Okay I know we are having a cold war but still I would like to thank you for that article for I always read ambivalent views about Aurangzeb.On one side he was shown as pious, one who used to sew caps to make money and never took a coin from royal treasures. While on the otherside he was projected as anti-hindu and very malevolent.

I have bookmarked that article.

So now....Get back to cold war mode!

@SarthakGanguly @scorpionx - Does the above lady not know that I'm not talking to her ?

Tell her to bother someone else and let me smoke in peace !

P.S Mazaaak thaaa....ghussaa nahin !

 

[temp1994]

@scorpionx - An interesting and apparently well referenced article Letter from America: Untangling Myth of Emperor Aurangzeb’s Reign | Asian Tribune - Though I was never very interested in pre-Pakistan Movement South Asian History unless it was Ancient History so I'm gonna have to read up on this !

This article is a classical case of motivated propaganda by telling half lies.

I may not rebut each and every line as i am not a professional historian, but could rebut enough than a pattern of lying is established.

Here.

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.

Already covered in debates on this thread.

Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury.

The thing with treasury is that even a half wit knows that appointing anyone except the best man could bankrupt him.These are secular appointments under any regime.

example:

1. Jews, even though hated throughout west, held position of central banker and treasurars throughout Europe.

2. This year when BJP defeated Congress, they sacked all political appointees of Congress, but did not sacked RBI governer.

Two of the highest ranked generals, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, in Aurangzeb’s administration were Hindus.

This is the biggest example of shamelessness in this whole article.

Both of these Generals were appointed by Shahjahan. Aurangzeb tolerated them for time being because they were one pf most powerful generals of Mughal army and would have broken Mughal Army.Aurangzeb was concerned enough about Jai singh's power that he did not embarked upon his "kill infidel" policy until Jai singh was dead.

His long term treatment of these Generals is a testament of his bigotry rather than magnanimity.Here what happened to these generals.

Unlike other generals who had failed in the Deccan, Jai Singh was punished harshly, partly because he was also held responsible for his son's actions at Agra (in letting Shivaji escape), and partly because he was a Hindu. For the expenses of this campaign, the Rajput general had received only 3 million rupees from Aurangzeb, and had spent 10 million rupees from the accumulated hoards in his ancestral kingdom. Not a paisa of this money was compensated by his ungrateful master; probably the opportunity of ruining a leading Hindu chief was too tempting for Aurangzeb. Only two years after Jai Singh's demise, Aurangzeb passed an order (1669) calling for the demolition of Hindu temples in the Mughal provinces.

In a letter written to one of his officials Jai Singh complained, "In four ways losses have fallen upon me—first mymujra(honour) is gone, second the districts of my kingdom have been taken away(by Aurangzeb), thirdly what I spent on this war is gone, and fourthly—and what is worst of all—my son's affairs have been ruined."

Jai Singh I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prithviraj Singhwas Jaswant Singh's son. It is chronicled inMarwarkhyatsthat Aurangzeb presented Prithviraj Singh a dress which was poisoned. On wearing this dress Prithviraji died in great pain atDelhi, 8 May 1667. Prithviraj was a good leader and a brave prince. Jaswant could not get over the shock of his son's death. He was very saddened because he had no male heir who could seek revenge.

Jaswant died atJamrud, nearPeshawar, on 28 December 1678. At the time of his death two of his wives were pregnant, and both would later bear sons. This led to a war in which there were attempts to instal Jaswant Singh's elder surviving sonAjit Singh Rathoras ruler of Marwar

Jaswant Singh of Marwar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Government) But this fact is somewhat less known. It does not require much intelligence to understand the difference between 14 and 148. But when truth is hostage to bigotry, facts are substituted for fiction, 148 may appear to be smaller than 14 to disingenuous historians, and that is an unfortunate reality we face.

This is the most stupid argument made by author with expectation that no one would check his claims.

1. It is disingenuous to compare two different metrics, in this case that of number of mansabdars vs administartive officials and claim superiority. Anyone falling for this is a low IQ retard.

2. The percentage of Hindu mansabdars ( let's compare a single metric ) fell from 21.74% at time of Aurangzeb's coronation to 16% after 7 year reign to 12% after 10 year of his reign.

http://aygrt.isrj.org/UploadedData/3930.pdf

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.” (Qur’an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Unbelievers) 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 which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

Better not go into this.

ISIS also says that their Islam is proper Islam and wipe floor with non salafis during theology debate.

It should be pointed out here that while Jizya tax was collected from able-bodied non-Muslim adult males who did not volunteer to join war efforts in a Muslim-administered country, a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war-efforts for defense of the Muslim-administered state. 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 had to pay sadaqah, fitrah and Khums. None of these taxes were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita tax collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims.

Oh, the age old Jiziya vs Zakat excuse.

For he who think both are same.

Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. The first point says that jizya was taken from dhimmis or the people of the book which means – Jews and Christians since Allah the all knowing did not know about Hindus ,Jains, Biddhists or american aboriginal religions. (So much for all knowing). These kind of kaffirs were not given the
choiceof jizya. For them the choices were – Conversion or Death.
Islam in it’s true form is nothing less than a large scale organised crime syndicate.

2. Muslims net wealth must exceed a minimum amount which is called Nisab. While all non-Muslims have to pay jizya the poor Muslims will be exempted from zakat because their net wealth will not exceed the Nisab.
Jizya is an indirect way of “Forced Conversion” since many poor non-Muslims will not be able to pay jizya.

3. The third point again reflects that a minimum wealth must be maintained by the Muslim to pay zakat. No such condition exists for the kaffirs.

4. There is no MAXIMUM amount of zakat, which means even the entire wealth of a non-Muslims can be taken as jizya. This is not the case with zakat. The max. amount is fixed and that too is not bounding on the Muslim.

5. Jizya is paid by all non-Muslims irrespective of age, wealth.

6. This point makes clear that zakat is optional for Muslim. On the contrary if a non-Muslims refuse to pay jizya his entire property and women folk can be taken captive by Muslim. The punishment for refusing to pay jizya is death

7. The last point confirms that the entire idea of jizya is to humiliate, insult and belittle the non-Muslims.


Finally here is list of great deeds of Aurangzeb.

Hindu religious fairs were outlawed in 1668, and an edict of the following year prohibited construction of Hindu temples as well as the repair of old ones. Also in 1669, Aurangzeb discontinued the practice, which had been originated by Akbar, of appearing before his subjects and conferringdarshanon them, or letting them receive his blessings as one might, in Hinduism, take thedarshanof a deity and so receive its blessings. Though the duty (internal customs fees) paid on goods was 2.5%, double the amount was levied on Hindu merchants from 1665 onwards. In 1679, Aurangzeb went so far as to reimpose, contrary to the advice of many of his court nobles and theologians, thejiziyaor graduated property tax on non-Hindus, and according to one historical source, elephants were deployed to crush the resistance in the area surrounding the Red Fort of Hindus who refused to submit tojiziyacollectors. The historian John F. Richards opines, quite candidly, that "Aurangzeb's ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversion was a sure way to the emperor's favor"


This list does not include murder of Sikh gurus which turned Sikhs into enemies of Islam to the extent that Sikhs forbid everything considered halal by Muslims.

Okay I know we are having a cold war but still I would like to thank you for that article for I always read ambivalent views about Aurangzeb.On one side he was shown as pious, one who used to sew caps to make money and never took a coin from royal treasures. While on the otherside he was projected as anti-hindu and very malevolent.

I have bookmarked that article.

So now....Get back to cold war mode!

 

[SarthakGanguly]

@scorpionx - An interesting and apparently well referenced article Letter from America: Untangling Myth of Emperor Aurangzeb’s Reign | Asian Tribune - Though I was never very interested in pre-Pakistan Movement South Asian History unless it was Ancient History so I'm gonna have to read up on this !

Aurangzeb is a closed chapter. It is OKAY for apologetic accounts and even whitewashers like this one above, but Aurangzeb Alamgir has been thoroughly researched already. And by ALL accounts, he was a superb military general, able administrator and top class bigot. His hardline views even made much of his court to hate him. Everything is recorded in great detail both from Mughal and other contemporary accounts. @Joe Shearer may be able to help you out.

Neither was a demon as portrayed a times, nor was he tolerant. He was another of the blood thirsty short sighted zealots who mixed religion with statecraft with devastating results.

Aurangzeb's crimes are all recorded in stone and can't be wished away.

 

[Armstrong]

Aurangzeb is a closed chapter. It is OKAY for apologetic accounts and even whitewashers like this one above, but Aurangzeb Alamgir has been thoroughly researched already. And by ALL accounts, he was a superb military general, able administrator and top class bigot. His hardline views even made much of his court to hate him. Everything is recorded in great detail both from Mughal and other contemporary accounts. @Joe Shearer may be able to help you out.

Neither was a demon as portrayed a times, nor was he tolerant. He was another of the blood thirsty short sighted zealots who mixed religion with statecraft with devastating results.

Aurangzeb's crimes are all recorded in stone and can't be wished away.

Okay !

 

[SarthakGanguly]

On one side he was shown as pious, one who used to sew caps to make money and never took a coin from royal treasures. While on the otherside he was projected as anti-hindu and very malevolent.

You do understand that both are connected? He made a belated attempt to drive the 'decaying liberalizing wine drinking' Mughal ruling class back to the 'roots'. He is not projeced as anti Hindu, his own court documents confirm that. While he did sanction a couple of templs - one in Kashi and one in the South, he destroyed close to 8000 temples in the Mathura region alone. Also renaming Vrindavan as Muminabad and Varanasi as Muhammadabad.

There is no denying of his personal piety. He was also NOT corrupt, but his religious motivation blinded his duty as a statesman.

What is unforunate is this -

i. Some Dharmic journalists write stuff that masquerades as history by sometimes exagerrating his crimes. Which is completely unnecessary.
ii. Some Islamists write stuff that also masquerades as genuine research by absolving him of them.

Both are harmful. The mughal firmans are preserved and anyone who can read them, can go ahead and read them in original. They have been also painstakingly translated and made available long back.

 

[Levina]

This article is a classical case of motivated propaganda by telling half lies.

I may not rebut each and every line as i am not a professional historian, but could rebut enough than a pattern of lying is established.

Here.



Already covered in debates on this thread.



The thing with treasury is that even a half wit knows that appointing anyone except the best man could bankrupt him.These are secular appointments under any regime.

example:

1. Jews, even though hated throughout west, held position of central banker and treasurars throughout Europe.

2. This year when BJP defeated Congress, they sacked all political appointees of Congress, but did not sacked RBI governer.



This is the biggest example of shamelessness in this whole article.

Both of these Generals were appointed by Shahjahan. Aurangzeb tolerated them for time being because they were one pf most powerful generals of Mughal army and would have broken Mughal Army.Aurangzeb was concerned enough about Jai singh's power that he did not embarked upon his "kill infidel" policy until Jai singh was dead.

His long term treatment of these Generals point to his bigotry rather than magnanimity.Here what happened to these generals.



Jai Singh I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jaswant Singh of Marwar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




This is the most stupid argument made by author with expectation that no one would check his claims.

1. It is disingenuous to compare two different metrics, in this case that of number of mansabdars vs administartive officials and claim superiority. Anyone falling for this is a low IQ retard.

2. The percentage of Hindu mansabdars ( let's compare a single metric ) fell from 21.74% at time of Aurangzeb's coronation to 16% after 7 year reign to 12% after 10 year of his reign.

http://aygrt.isrj.org/UploadedData/3930.pdf



Better not go into this.

ISIS also says that their Islam is proper Islam and wipe floor with non salafis during theology debate.



Oh, the age old Jiziya vs Zakat excuse.

For he who think both are same.

Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. The first point says that jizya was taken from dhimmis or the people of the book which means – Jews and Christians since Allah the all knowing did not know about Hindus ,Jains, Biddhists or american aboriginal religions. (So much for all knowing). These kind of kaffirs were not given the
choiceof jizya. For them the choices were – Conversion or Death.
Islam in it’s true form is nothing less than a large scale organised crime syndicate.

2. Muslims net wealth must exceed a minimum amount which is called Nisab. While all non-Muslims have to pay jizya the poor Muslims will be exempted from zakat because their net wealth will not exceed the Nisab.
Jizya is an indirect way of “Forced Conversion” since many poor non-Muslims will not be able to pay jizya.

3. The third point again reflects that a minimum wealth must be maintained by the Muslim to pay zakat. No such condition exists for the kaffirs.

4. There is no MAXIMUM amount of zakat, which means even the entire wealth of a non-Muslims can be taken as jizya. This is not the case with zakat. The max. amount is fixed and that too is not bounding on the Muslim.

5. Jizya is paid by all non-Muslims irrespective of age, wealth.

6. This point makes clear that zakat is optional for Muslim. On the contrary if a non-Muslims refuse to pay jizya his entire property and women folk can be taken captive by Muslim. The punishment for refusing to pay jizya is death – The Religion of Peace

7. The last point confirms that the entire idea of jizya is to humiliate, insult and belittle the non-Muslims.


Finally here is list of great deeds of Aurangzeb.

Hindu religious fairs were outlawed in 1668, and an edict of the following year prohibited construction of Hindu temples as well as the repair of old ones. Also in 1669, Aurangzeb discontinued the practice, which had been originated by Akbar, of appearing before his subjects and conferringdarshanon them, or letting them receive his blessings as one might, in Hinduism, take thedarshanof a deity and so receive its blessings. Though the duty (internal customs fees) paid on goods was 2.5%, double the amount was levied on Hindu merchants from 1665 onwards. In 1679, Aurangzeb went so far as to reimpose, contrary to the advice of many of his court nobles and theologians, thejiziyaor graduated property tax on non-Hindus, and according to one historical source, elephants were deployed to crush the resistance in the area surrounding the Red Fort of Hindus who refused to submit tojiziyacollectors. The historian John F. Richards opines, quite candidly, that "Aurangzeb's ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversion was a sure way to the emperor's favor"


This list does not include murder of Sikh gurus which turned Sikhs into enemies of Islam to the extent that Sikhs forbid everything considered halal by Muslims.

Gaawd! O gaawd!
So Aurangzeb is no saint....Guess what? I knew it.
But I wanted to know more that man...some how he gets me curious.

Now tell me are you really a 20yr old guy that you claim to be???
You must be an extreme version of Richard Eaton...

 

[Armstrong]

Both are harmful. The mughal firmans are preserved and anyone who can read them, can go ahead and read them in original. They have been also painstakingly translated and made available long back.

Post a couple of links to them !

 

[GURU DUTT]

the most underated and unsung heros of indian history to me are hemu , dara shikow and Dr. baliram hedgewaar and jayprakash narayan and pandit madan mohan malviya

 

[scorpionx]

What is unforunate is this -
i. Some Dharmic journalists write stuff that masquerades as history by sometimes exagerrating his crimes. Which is completely unnecessary.
ii. Some Islamists write stuff that also masquerades as genuine research by absolving him of them.
Both are harmful. The mughal firmans are preserved and anyone who can read them, can go ahead and read them in original. They have been also painstakingly translated and made available long back.

Very balanced view. After spending quite a long time on historical threads this is what I realized so far. Historical figures must not be read necessarily evil or divine; Read them just as they were.