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!
usha manohar wrote: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
He most probably banned sati practice because he liked the women to keep for himself!! But anyway, can anyone give proof of Aurangzeb being the one to ban the sati practice??? I never read about this one of his many 'virtuous' deeds!
Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:usha manohar wrote: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
He most probably banned sati practice because he liked the women to keep for himself!! But anyway, can anyone give proof of Aurangzeb being the one to ban the sati practice??? I never read about this one of his many 'virtuous' deeds!
Neither have I Kalyani, it is the Secular Historians who brought about the change in the character and personality of Aurangazeb and for that matter they changed historical facts as well to suit the rulers of the day ..
Sati, the act of burning the wife alive on the funeral fire of her husband was abolished by Britishers, this is what majority of us know. However, the fact that Aurangzeb in 1666 issued an order to outlaw Sati is not remembered at all. The great deed towards the Hindu women which even the Great Akbar could not do was done by Emperor Aurangzeb.
The above is randomly selected from the many such posts in Internet. The thank you pals will not agree as usual but other members may like to also go to Internet if they want unbiased information..
There are so many truth written in the history that even Google feels happy returning few of them- just typed Aurangzeb in Google's search bar and what appeared is as follows
https://aeon.co/essays/the-great-aurangzeb-is-everybodys-least-favourite-mughal
Even then I could not find a single link that gave concrete proof of Aurangzeb being the one to ban Sati practice. In fact, it was Akbar who did so and even saved Rani Damyanti from being forced to commit Sati. Why are secularists so hell bent in trying to sublimate a monster that Aurangzeb was??
Here's what I came across on Wikipedia-
About Akbar-
According to Annemarie Schimmel, the Mughal Emperor Akbar was averse to the practice of Sati; however, he expressed his admiration for "widows who wished to be cremated with their deceased husbands".[90] He was averse to abuse, and in 1582, Akbar issued an order to prevent any use of compulsion in sati.
About Aurangzeb-
Aurangzeb issued another order in 1663, states Sheikh Muhammad Ikram, after returning from Kashmir, "in all lands under Mughal control, never again should the officials allow a woman to be burnt". The Aurangzeb order, states Ikram, though not mentioned in the formal histories, is recorded in the official records of Aurangzeb's time. Although Aurangzeb's orders could be evaded with payment of bribes to officials, adds Ikram, later European travelers record that sati was not much practiced in Mughal empire, and that Sati was "very rare, except it be some Rajah's wives, that the Indian women burn at all" by the end of Aurangzeb's reign.
So basically, Akbar removed the compulsion from Sati and Aurangzeb banned it altogether.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)
Thanks for the Wikipedia info Abhishek, but what I was referring to was proof in the form of old firmans or bakhars about the decree issued by the Moghals. What I have come across very often is that Sati practice started as a way of protecting themselves against the Arabs and Moghals who raped and assaulted Hindu women after killing their husbands and sons in the first place. So where is the heroic attribute attached to it if the Moghals forbade the practice? Maybe it was indeed a good deed on their part, but that does not negate or uplift the vicious crimes they did commit against Hindus and Hinduism in any manner!
Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:Thanks for the Wikipedia info Abhishek, but what I was referring to was proof in the form of old firmans or bakhars about the decree issued by the Moghals. What I have come across very often is that Sati practice started as a way of protecting themselves against the Arabs and Moghals who raped and assaulted Hindu women after killing their husbands and sons in the first place. So where is the heroic attribute attached to it if the Moghals forbade the practice? Maybe it was indeed a good deed on their part, but that does not negate or uplift the vicious crimes they did commit against Hindus and Hinduism in any manner!
Of course. Based on what I've read about him till now, I totally despise him. He's destroyed numerous temples and committed serious crimes.
But i found the link, so decided to put it up for interpretations from other members.
Sati from what I understand was a deplorable Hindu custom where a widowed wife was expected or forcibly burnt with her husband's body whereas self immolation practiced by the Rajasthani royal ladies was called Johaar. They did it out of their own free will when they came to know that their husbands were defeated against the Mughals knowing fully well that the Mughals would abuse them !
@kiran8