Huffington Post calls Aurangazeb misunderstood

1700s is not that far back from 1857 and there are many old recorded documents that I have studied while in college regarding Aurangazeb and his butchery. All the rest came pretty recently by those with vested interests .

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

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]

You are right. His biggest gift was the Firman to ban Sati in 1664.  People forget that Aurangzeb was not all bad. 

Aurangzeb deserves the title "the Great". If Chengiz Khan can be called the great, why not Aurangzeb? This was the theme of my article in 'strategic digest'. Aurangzeb ruled over the biggest empire ever in Indian history and none could defeat him. Yes, he was pro-Islam, but why could not Hindus who were 90% of his empire rise up against him. To cringe and cry now is meaningless.

MG Singh wrote:

Aurangzeb deserves the title "the Great". If Chengiz Khan can be called the great, why not Aurangzeb? This was the theme of my article in 'strategic digest'. Aurangzeb ruled over the biggest empire ever in Indian history and none could defeat him. Yes, he was pro-Islam, but why could not Hindus who were 90% of his empire rise up against him. To cringe and cry now is meaningless.

That is the whole point , Hindus were not united and it was easy for the Invaders to plunder , loot and rule ..A good deed here and there does not make a violent leader great and Aurangazeb was definitely not a great leader. .

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.

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.

This is worth taking a look at before magnanimously crowning Aurangazeb. ..This also makes me wonder at the mindset of the people who spew venom at Nathram Godse who killed just one person rightly or wrongly on principles but are over generous with a butcher going to the extent of calling him a fakir ( the height of communalusm and hypocrisy) who plundered the nation, killing thousands of innocent Hindus and forcibly converted them! No wonder our nation is what it is today ..

http://www.aurangzeb.info/?m=1

Some members are self appointed judges and will pass same biased judgement irrespective of quality of data made available. It is time they also did some serious home work and data mining to make discussions lively and meaningful rather than thanking each other most of the time.

It is not true that some members are self appointed.

Facts about Aurangazeb are History. No one can neither distort nor manipulate the Historical facts

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,..

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 !