Media plays a major role in changing and manipulating public opinion. While some of it may be advantageous, some are downright condemnable because of the insinuations they make trying to change history probably to please some vested interests .. Hu ffington post has done this several times before but this time they got a dose of their own medicine from the twitterati ..The two links give all the relevant details!
rambabu wrote:Well said. Glorifying an emperor, Aurangazeb known for his anti Hindu deeds is unpardonable.
Swai Jai sing died when he was on a misson in south against Maratha. that mission was failed and hug amount lost by Aurangazeb in this mission. On death of Swai Jai Sing he did not regard is Matyra and speak some hard words for him and Hindus.
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 ..
vijay wrote:The leftists are not getting left out and the rightists are not always right. Will some one explain what is the need to appease the minority ? It is a canard conveniently spread by vested interests for cornering votes.
I wonder who are the Left historians. The Left parties have very little presence in political life. How can they hold strong position in research of history. It appears that anyone not agreeing with saffron brigade is termed as 'Left Historian".. I wonder whether the so called Left historians like Romila Thapar are even members of any Left Party like CPI(M). Also, I have seen that the Left leaders like Yechury never make any statement in support of 'Left historians'. Apparently, the label of 'Left historian' is fake. They are true professional historians and have nothing to do with Right or Left.
The usual muddle from rambabu..
I am not sure how and who started the word left historian here , probably those who keep speaking about right wing, whatever that means. These are media made terminologies that mean very little because no individual would lean or agree with one ideology. Personally I see some good aspects in all political ideologies but on the whole the one that has many good points is the one that you tend to support ..
It is a known fact that even historian s have to base their studies on some ground facts like old literature, word of mouth and archeological evidence . They cannot be 100 percent accurate and could be swayed to a certain extent. .
It is frightening to see people writing articles about a demon like Aurangazeb and along him a fakir , honestly the k d of misinformation and manipulation that has been.going on for years to distort history is unbelievable...One more article on the Mughal butcher !!
http://postcard.news/aurangzeb-cruel-king-india-ever-saw/
usha manohar wrote:It is frightening to see people writing articles about a demon like Aurangazeb and along him a fakir , honestly the k d of misinformation and manipulation that has been.going on for years to distort history is unbelievable...One more article on the Mughal butcher !!
Very true Usha, the article brings to light some of his horrific doings, although not in so many details. I doubt if many of us would be even able to read about those details - the manner in which Aurangzeb took lives of others and reveled in their agony and sufferings. And yet, some have the audacity to term those doings as being relevant to that era! Really sick and disgusting, the way in which people such as Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan etc are being glorified today and the Bollywood is helping them do it!
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]
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.
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.
@kiran8