usha manohar wrote:

I agree that some members are so biased that they can't look beyond distorted articles and links provided by vested interests simply because they suit their bent of mind and leanings. So be it,..

So true!!! There also seems to be a problem with accepting that we are thanking each other!

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

I agree that some members are so biased that they can't look beyond distorted articles and links provided by vested interests simply because they suit their bent of mind and leanings. So be it,..

So true!!! There also seems to be a problem with accepting that we are thanking each other!

Lol, the outcome of sicular mindset by the so called intellectual class that has its nose up because it thinks it is different in it's based views . The height of duplicity !!!?

MG Singh wrote:

We mist be  objective in assessing Aurangzeb. He was a great soldier well versed in principles of war. He ruled the greatest empire in the world from Tashkent to Assam and deep south. He was not lkre Chengiz khan who butchered 10 million people yet is considered great. AurNgzeb banned Sati and during his second part of his reign stopped destroying temples. He also felt Sorry for Guru Gobind . This is related in the zafarnama. AurNzeb dserved " The great" title. MY mind is clear.

It may be right that he felt sorry for Guru Gobing Singh. But why he didn't felt sorry for Guru Teg Bhadur, who was murder at Chandni Chowk in front of residence of Auragzed, Red fort.

anil wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

We mist be  objective in assessing Aurangzeb. He was a great soldier well versed in principles of war. He ruled the greatest empire in the world from Tashkent to Assam and deep south. He was not lkre Chengiz khan who butchered 10 million people yet is considered great. AurNgzeb banned Sati and during his second part of his reign stopped destroying temples. He also felt Sorry for Guru Gobind . This is related in the zafarnama. AurNzeb dserved " The great" title. MY mind is clear.

It may be right that he felt sorry for Guru Gobing Singh. But why he didn't felt sorry for Guru Teg Bhadur, who was murder at Chandni Chowk in front of residence of Auragzed, Red fort.

The problem is most of the so called good deeds attributed to Aurangzeb began through the advent of internet and some class of people who were carefully selected to change public opinion. No man is totally evil or good. Aurangazeb was more evil  than most , there is no two opinion about that ...about the sati issue, it is never mentioned in any of the older history books that we studied but now it is being brandished about 

As usual content is missing and only accusations aplenty. Please contribute some facts rather thsn take it from others and twist them round.

I have given enough links on this discussion itself and there are many more on the net which give all points of view, so it is left to the member as to what he or she wants to believe  about Aurangazeb..

Aurangazeb was well known for his anti Hindu policies. In his regime many Indians converted to Islam. In this process, he often used force.

rambabu wrote:

Aurangazeb was well known for his anti Hindu policies. In his regime many Indians converted to Islam. In this process, he often used force.

Wow, what a post ? After everyone had their say, you conveniently parrot others , which I guess is pretty normal for you !

Aurangzeb was a king of his times. What he did at that time is being judged by us today when the environments are totally different. BJP in Kashmir and outside Kashmir is seen differently. Who is right and who is wrong?

Past sins have long shadows that extend to the present and the future , so does Aurangazeb's past brutal rule which of course the SECULARS want to white wash !