In Aurangazeb's  reign 4 million Hindus were killed. Be has banned Diwali, an important Hindu festival.  Jiziya tax was forced on non Muslims, besides demolishing Hindu temples.

rambabu wrote:

Leftists are true Historians ? Can you substantiate ?

 Anyhow, it has been Proved that Aurangazeb is anti Hindus. He is well known as a Hindu Temple demolisher.

Auranzeb was primarily a ruler. Unlike Babar,he was born in India and did what he considered best for people. H lived a simple life andso it is okay to call himFaquir Badshah.  Here are some extracts from the Google article on him. He was not always fanatically anti Hindu and changedhispolicy time to time. 

Ram Puniyani states that Aurangzeb was not always fanatically anti-Hindu, and kept changing his policies depending on the needs of the situation. He banned the construction of new temples, but permitted the repair and maintenance of existing temples. He also made generous donations of jagirs to several temples to win the sympathies of his Hindu subjects. There are several firmans (orders) in his name, supporting temples and gurudwaras, including Mahakaleshwar temple of Ujjain, Balaji temple of Chitrakoot, Umananda Temple of Guwahati and the Shatrunjaya Jain temples.^[48] During his time, the number of Hindu Mansabdars increased from 22% to 31% in the Mughal administration as he needed them to continue his fight in the Deccan.^[42]

But almost all the standard Historians including famous Historian Mathew White claims that Aurangzeb was  Mughal emperor who cruelly  suppressed  any thing connected with Hindus.

We had one of Ram Puniyanis essays on communalism  as study material  when I was studying my post graduation in Sociology. It was so full of contrasting views that later it was discontinued. He has by now grown to be  a typical Hindu basher and Modi hater so one cannot expect any fair historical facts from him, he had a way of downgrading certain things and highlighting other minor points  that perfectly suited the Communal agenda of the previous regime  ..

usha manohar wrote:

anil wrote:

 Aurangazeb  was a selfish emperor. It is fact that Kings of Rajasthan state help to much to all mugal emperor.  Aurangazeb was worst of them. After death of Swai Jai Sing, King of Jaipur Aurangazes force to sent seven year old son of Jaising to fought war in South.

The Mughals did not invade India to become saints like one member said, but to plunder and loot and also spread their religion which they all did with violence and force . One can only blame Indian rulers who were not united ..

They were not saints so how they behave like them. I read in one book that Akbar tried to poison Kunwar Man Singh, one loyal commander of Akbar. Salim is addict of opium, they were Rajput of Rajputana who save the kingdom of Mugals.

rambabu wrote:

Anil. Some unknown facts like Salim is addicted to opium

Read some books of history of Rajasthan and Mugals you know more things about these. I am telling one more thing. Mugal kings never married there daughter because they don't like to salute and pay respect to in laws of daughters. 

rambabu wrote:

Anil. Some unknown facts like Salim is addicted to opium

Why do you parrot what anil has already mentioned, old habits die hard. ..

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

anil wrote:

 Aurangazeb  was a selfish emperor. It is fact that Kings of Rajasthan state help to much to all mugal emperor.  Aurangazeb was worst of them. After death of Swai Jai Sing, King of Jaipur Aurangazes force to sent seven year old son of Jaising to fought war in South.

The Mughals did not invade India to become saints like one member said, but to plunder and loot and also spread their religion which they all did with violence and force . One can only blame Indian rulers who were not united ..

They were not saints so how they behave like them. I read in one book that Akbar tried to poison Kunwar Man Singh, one loyal commander of Akbar. Salim is addict of opium, they were Rajput of Rajputana who save the kingdom of Mugals.

When all rulers regardless of what nation or religion they belonged to we're cruel and violent. But the cruelty among the Hindu kings was relegated to war and defending their kingdom. With the invasion of Mughals India witnessed every kind of evil possible including many perversions..

usha manohar wrote:

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

anil wrote:

 Aurangazeb  was a selfish emperor. It is fact that Kings of Rajasthan state help to much to all mugal emperor.  Aurangazeb was worst of them. After death of Swai Jai Sing, King of Jaipur Aurangazes force to sent seven year old son of Jaising to fought war in South.

The Mughals did not invade India to become saints like one member said, but to plunder and loot and also spread their religion which they all did with violence and force . One can only blame Indian rulers who were not united ..

They were not saints so how they behave like them. I read in one book that Akbar tried to poison Kunwar Man Singh, one loyal commander of Akbar. Salim is addict of opium, they were Rajput of Rajputana who save the kingdom of Mugals.

When all rulers regardless of what nation or religion they belonged to we're cruel and violent. But the cruelty among the Hindu kings was relegated to war and defending their kingdom. With the invasion of Mughals India witnessed every kind of evil possible including many perversions..

Yes it right right that Indians kings, Specialy of Rajput defend kindom of Mugals. For it they agreed to break their parlors. to cross the border of country at that time was against Hinud religion. But for Akbar Hindu Kings cross border and enter in Afghanistan.

It is clear that most of us do not know correct history but are commenting on hearsay and biased versions. India of today was formed after 1857 when British took over from East India Company. For the first time the borders of India got defined. Before that it was common for the kings of the more than 500 kingdoms to fight with each other and commit all sort of war crimes as were prevalent during those times. The Rajput kings for selfish reasons of preserving their rule against powerful Mughals accepted their suzerainty and did their bidding. Today there is an attempt to wash away these acts by blaming Mughals. We were weak and are protesting today that why did strong kings come and conquered us. Those days that was the system. Kingdoms were expanded also for economic reasons. More land meant more produce. So please let the comments be based on historical facts rather than wishes and desires and biases to make interactions meaningful.