Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian History & Culture (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Indian History (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive (/showthread.php?tid=445)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-17-2007

Moderators, if you think there is a better thread where we can collect and discuss everything focusing on Mughal period of Indian history, please merge it there. Otherwise, let us keep it as a new topic.

QUOTE<span style='color:red'>The truth about Aurangzeb</span>
Francois Gautier
February 16, 2007

FACT, the Trust which I head, is holding an exhibition on 'Aurangzeb as he was according to Mughal documents', from February 16 to 20 at New Delhi's Habitat Center, the Palm Court Gallery, from 10 am to 9 pm.

Why an exhibition on Aurangzeb, some may ask. Firstly, I have been a close student of Indian history, and one of its most controversial figures has been Aurangzeb (1658-1707). It is true that under him the Mughal empire reached its zenith, but Aurangzeb was also a very cruel ruler some might even say monstrous.

What are the facts? Aurangzeb did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishwanath temple, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, and had mosques built on a number of cleared temple sites. Other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. A few examples: Krishna's birth temple in Mathura; the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujarat; the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares; and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in four, if not five figures. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped out; even his own brother Dara Shikoh was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion; Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions.

Yet, Percival Spear, co-author with Romila Thapar of the prestigious A History of India (Penguin), writes: 'Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares.' L'histoire de l'Inde moderne (Fayard), the French equivalent of Percival Spear's history of India, praises Aurangzeb and says, 'He has been maligned by Hindu fundamentalists'. Even Indian politicians are ignorant of Aurangzeb's evil deeds. Nehru might have known about them, but for his own reasons he chose to keep quiet and instructed his historians to downplay Aurangzeb's destructive drive and instead praise him as a benefactor of arts.

Since then six generations of Marxist historians have done the same and betrayed their allegiance to truth. Very few people know for instance that Aurangzeb banned any kind of music and that painters had to flee his wrath and take refuge with some of Rajasthan's friendly maharajahs.

Thus, we thought we should get at the root of the matter. History (like journalism) is about documentation and first-hand experience. We decided to show Aurangzeb according to his own documents. There are an incredible number of farhans, original edicts of Aurangzeb hand-written in Persian, in India's museums, particularly in Rajasthan, such as the Bikaner archives. It was not always easy to scan them, we encountered resistance, sometimes downright hostility and we had to go once to the chief minister to get permission. Indeed, the director of Bikaner archives told us that in 50 years we were the first ones asking for the farhans dealing with Aurangzeb's destructive deeds. Then we asked painters from Rajasthan to reproduce in the ancient Mughal style some of the edicts: the destruction of Somnath temple; the trampling of Hindus protesting jaziya tax by Aurangzeb's elephants; or the order from Aurangzeb prohibiting Hindus to ride horses and palanquins; or the beheading of Teg Bahadur and Dara Shikoh.

People might say: 'OK, this is all true, Aurangzeb was indeed a monster, but why rake up the past, when we have tensions between Muslims and Hindus today?' There are two reasons for this exhibition. The first is that no nation can move forward unless its children are taught to look squarely at their own history, the good and the bad, the evil and the pure. The French, for instance, have many dark periods in their history, more recently some of the deeds they did during colonisation in North Africa or how they collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War and handed over French Jews who died in concentration camps (the French are only now coming to terms with it).

The argument that looking at one's history will pit a community against the other does not hold either: French Catholics and Protestants, who share a very similar religion, fought each other bitterly. Catholics brutally murdered thousands of Protestants in the 18th century; yet today they live peacefully next to each other. France fought three wars with Germany in the last 150 years, yet they are great friends today.

Let Hindus and Muslims then come to terms with what happened under Aurangzeb, because Muslims suffered as much as Hindus. It was not only Shah Jahan or Dara Shikoh who were murdered, but also the forefathers of today's Indian Muslims who have been converted at 90 per cent. Aurangzeb was the Hitler, the asura of medieval India. No street is named after Hitler in the West, yet in New Delhi we have Aurangzeb Road, a constant reminder of the horrors Aurangzeb perpetrated against Indians, including his own people.

Finally, Aurangzeb is very relevant today because he thought that Sunni Islam was the purest form of his religion and he sought to impose it with ruthless efficiency -- even against those of his own faith, such as his brother. Aurangzeb clamped down on the more syncretic, more tolerant Islam, of the Sufi kind, which then existed in India. But he did not fully succeed. Four centuries later, is he going to have the last word? I remember, when I started covering Kashmir in the late '70s, that Islam had a much more open face. The Kashmir Muslim, who is also a descendant of converted Hindus, might have thought that Allah was the only true God, but he accepted his Kashmiri Pandit neighbour, went to his or her marriage, ate in his or her house and the Hindu in turn went to the mosque. Women used to walk with open faces, watch TV, films.

Then the shadow of Aurangzeb fell on Kashmir and the hardline Sunnis came from Pakistan and Afghanistan: cinemas were banned, the burqa imposed, 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits were chased out of Kashmir through violence and became refugees in their own land and the last Sufi shrine of Sharar-e-Sharif was burnt to the ground (I was there). Today the Shariat has been voted in Kashmir, a state of democratic, secular India, UP's Muslims have applauded, and the entire Indian media which went up in flames when the government wanted Vande Mataram to be sung, kept quiet. The spirit of Aurangzeb seems to triumph.

But what we need today in India -- and indeed in the world -- is a Dara Shikoh, who reintroduces an Islam which, while believing in the supremacy of its Prophet, not only accepts other faiths, but is also able to see the good in each religion, study them, maybe create a synthesis. Islam needs to adapt its scriptures which were created nearly 15 centuries ago for the people and customs of these times, but which are not necessarily relevant in some of their injunctions today. Kabir, Dara Shikoh and some of the Sufi saints attempted this task, but failed. Aurangzeb knew what he was doing when he had his own brother beheaded. And we know what we are saying when we say that this exhibition is very relevant to today's India.

May the Spirit of Dara Shikoh come back to India and bring back Islam to a more tolerant human face.

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-17-2007

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 17 2007, 11:55 AM)Moderators, if you think there is a better thread where we can collect and discuss everything focusing on Mughal period of Indian history, please merge it there. Otherwise, let us keep it as a new topic.Â

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<span style='color:red'>The truth about Aurangzeb</span>
Francois Gautier
February 16, 2007.

[right][snapback]64547[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Bodhi,

There is nothing great about Mughals. These comments of Jahangir pretty much sum it up:
From:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_a...asions_of_India

Corroborating Hunter, Jahangir, son of Akbar, bemoans in his memoirs (Memoirs of the Emperor Jahangueir written by himself, trans. David Price, Oriental Translation Committee, London 1829: republished Calcutta 1904.):
QUOTEÂ Â And here I am compelled to observe, with whatever regret, that notwithstanding the frequent and sanguinary executions which have been dealt among the people of Hindustan, the number of turbulent and disaffected never seems to diminish; for what with the examples made during the reign of my father, and subsequently of my own, there is scarcely a province in the empire [there were about 14 subahs at the time] in which .... in battle ..... five and six hundred thousand human beings have not, at various periods fallen victims to this fatal disposition to discontent and turbulence. Ever and anon, in one quarter or another, will some accursed miscreant spring up to unfurl the standard of rebellion; so that in Hindustan never has there existed a period of complete repose.

This excerpt from Jahangir shows very clearly that Muslims, including Akbar, were always considered alien invaders by rajputs and other Hindus in India.

-Digvijay

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Bharatvarsh - 02-17-2007

The Mughals were a bunch of freeloading bastards who were even worse than the British, they were all colonialist SOB's too.

But notice the comments on the article from Muslims and secularists, so many blatant lies are being repeated there, for example this:
QUOTEAurangzeb- The Truth is Some where In-between
by kanakadurga murali on Feb 17, 2007 09:27 PM | Hide repliesÂ

Aurangzeb who ascended the throne in the last days of the mughal empire attempted many reforms.

He banned Sati, widow immolation on husband%u2019s pyre, abolished cultivation of opium, gambling, alcohol and prostitution.

He also abolished rahdari (inland transport duty) and octroi.

Surprisingly he also banned cow slaughter.

However he re-imposed the Jaziya tax that had been cancelled a hundred years ago.

He destroyed some temples and closed down others. But he gave money to restore other temples and gave running expenses to still others.

He did not interfere with the celebration of private religious Hindu worship, or the teaching of religion by Hindu priests.

Personally he was brave and industrious and lived a life of simplicity and purity.

The well-known poet Iqbal called him the %u201Cfirst exponent of Muslim nationalism in the Indian sub-continent.%u201D

http://us.rediff.com/news/2007/feb/16francois.htm
asshole is repeating blatant lies, he never banned cow slaughter and wanted them to be slaughtered in destroyed mandirs so that Hindus wouldn't rebuild them.

He never gave any money to restore mandirs.

He interfered quite blatantly in Hindu religious practices, for example he banned music and closed down schools where people were being taught by Brahmins.

Traitors like the above poster don't have the guts to debate with us and post rubbish in front of people with no knowledge since they can get away with it, notice that all the Muslims and seculars who came on here always did the "hoot and scoot" act because they know they will be exposed for everyone to see.

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Bharatvarsh - 02-17-2007

From my previous post:
QUOTEHe did not interfere with the celebration of private religious Hindu worship, or the teaching of religion by Hindu priests. 
I guess this is the asshole's definition of non interference in the teaching of religion by Hindu priests:
QUOTEProhibition of HindÃº Teaching and Worship.

[Text, p. 81.] On the 17th ZÃ-l ka'da, 1079 (18th April, 1669), it reached the ear of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the provinces of Thatta, MultÃ¡n, and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish BrÃ¡hmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that students and learners, MusulmÃ¡ns as well as HindÃºs, went there, even from long distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The âDirector of the Faithâ consequently issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship. On the 15th RabÃ'u-l Ã¡khir it was reported to his religious Majesty, leader of the unitarians, that, in obedience to order, the GovernÂment officers had destroyed the temple of BishnÃ¡th at Benares.

[Text, p. 95.] In the month of RamazÃ¡n, 1080 A.H. (December, 1669), in the thirteenth year of the reign, this justice-loving monarch, the constant enemy of tyrants, commanded the destrucÂtion of the HindÃº temple of Mathura or Mattra, known by the name of Dehra KÃ©sÃº RÃ¡Ã, and soon that stronghold of falsehood was levelled with the ground. On the same spot was laid, at great expense, the foundation of a vast mosque. The den of iniquity thus destroyed owed its erection to Nar Singh Deo Bundela, an ignorant and depraved man. JahÃ¡ngÃr, before he ascended the throne, was at one time, for various reasons, much displeased with Shaikh AbÃº-l Fazl, and the above-mentioned HindÃº, in order to compass the Shaikh's death, affected great devotion to the Prince. As a reward for his services, he obtained from the Prince become King perÂmission to construct the Mattra temple. Thirty-three lacs were expended on this work. Glory be to God, who has given us the faith of IslÃ¡m, that, in this reign of the destroyer of false gods, an undertaking so difficult of accomplishment* has been brought to a successful termination! This vigorous support given to the true faith was a severe blow to the arrogance of the RÃ¡jas, and, like idols, they turned their faces awe-struck to the wall. The richly-jewelled idols taken from the pagan temples were transÂferred to Ãgra, and there placed beneath the steps leading to the NawÃ¡b Begam SÃ¡hib's mosque, in order that they might ever be pressed under foot by the true believers. Mattra changed its name into IslÃ¡mÃ¡bÃ¡d, and was thus called in all official documents, as well as by the people.

http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=80201017&ct=52

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-17-2007

<span style='color:red'>Destruction of Sri Krishna Janma Bhumi Temple</span> by Aurangzeb, which was then knows as Kesava Deva temple:

In MathurÃ¡ : a District Memoir, Frederic Salmon Growse writes:

QUOTEIn spite of the agreeable reminiscances which a man of Auragzeb's temperament must have cherished in connection with a place where an act of such unnatural perfidy must have been successfully accomplished, his fanaticism was not a whit mitigated in favour of the city of Mathura.Â In 1668, a local rebellion afforded him a fit pretext for a crusade against Hinduism.
....
....
The ring leader of disturbances, a Jat by name of Kokila, who had plundered the Sadabad pargana, and was regarded as the instrument of Abd-un-Nabi's death, fell into the hands of the new Governor' deputy, Shaik Razi-ud-Din, and was sent to Agra and there executed.Â His son and daughter were both brought up as Mohammedans, and eventually the girl married Shah Kuli, and the boy, who had received the name of Fazil, became famous for his skills in reciting Kuran.
....
....
A few months earlier, in February of the same year, during the fast of Ramazan, the time when religious bigotry would be most inflamed, AUrangzeb had descended in person on Mathura.Â The temple specially marked out for destruction was one built so recently as the reign of Jahangir, at a cost of 33 lakhs, by Bir Sinh Dev Bundela, of Urcha.Â Beyond all doubt this was the last of the famous shrines of Kesava Deva, of which further mention will be made hereafter.Â
....
....
To judge from the author of the Mansir, its destruction was regarded as a death-blow to Hinduism.Â He writes in the following triumphant strain - "In a short time, with the help of numerous workmen, this seat of error was utterly broken down. Glory be to God, that so difficult an undertaking has been successfully accomplished in the present auspicious reign, wherein so many dens of heathenism and idoltary have been destroyed.Â Seeing the power of Islam and the efficacy of true religion, the proud Rajas felt their breath burning in their throats, and became as dumb as picture on a wall.Â The idols, large and small alike, all adorned with costly jewels, were carried away from the heathen shrines and taken to Agra, where they were buried, under the steps of Nawab Kudisa Begum's Mosque, so that people might trample upon them for ever."Â

It was from this event that Mathura was called Islamabad.


Writing 'Report Of A Tour In Eastern Rajputana', in Annual Progress Report of Archaeological Survey Of India, 1882-83, Maj. General Cunningham writes about his study of the site of this temple:

QUOTE...and in the following reign of Jahangir, the Raja of Urcha, Bir Singh Deo, who had won the emporar's favour, by assassinating Abul Fazl, was permitted to <b>re</b>build the temple of Kesava Dev, on the site of Katra.Â This is the temple which was seen by Tavernier in all its glory, about 40 yaers after it was finished.Â But some 12 or 15 years later, it was overthrown by Aurangzeb.Â

Mr. Growse fixes the date of the destruction of the great temple of Kesava Deva in February 1669, when Aurangzeb visited Mathura in person.Â In my second report written in 1862-63, I had already discovered that the temple was still standing in AD 1663, and I verified the charge against Aurangzeb by means of some inscriptions on the pavement slabs, which were recorded by Hindu pilgrims to the shrine of Kesava Ray.Â In relaying the pavement the Muhammadan architect was obliged to cut many of the slabs to make them fit into their new places.Â This was proved by several of the slabs bearing incomplete portions of Nagari inscriptions of a late date.Â One slab has, "...vat 1713, Phalgun,"Â the initial Sam of Samvat having been cut off.Â Another slab has the name of Keso Ray, the rest being wanting, while a third bears the date of Samvat 1720.Â These dates are equivalent to 1656 and 1663; and as the latter is 5 years subsequent to the accession of Aurangzeb, it is certain that the Hindu temple was still standing at the beginning of his reign.

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Bharatvarsh - 02-17-2007

The author is mistaken about the reason for the demolition:
QUOTEPutting the Cart Before the Horse

The veneer of plausibility also comes off when we look into the chronology of Hindu rebellions in the Mathura region. We find no evidence that Aurangzeb was faced with any Hindu rebellion in that region when he destroyed the KeÅ¡avadeva temple. There was no Bundela uprising in 1670 when the KeÅ¡avadeva temple was destroyed. The first Bundela rebellion led by Jujhar Singh had been put down by December, 1635 in the reign of ShÃ£h JahÃ£n when that Rajput prince was killed and the ladies of his house-hold were forced into the Mughal harem. The second Bundela rebellion had ended with the suicide of Champat Rai in October, 1661. The third Bundela rebellion was still in the future.Â Champat Raiâs son, Chhatrasal, had joined the imperial army sent against Shivaji in 1671 when Shivaji drew his attention to what was being done to the Hindus by Aurangzeb. It may also be pointed out that our professors stretch the Mathura region too far when they include Bundelkhand in it.

The professors have put the cart before the horse by holding the Jat rebellion in the Mathura region responsible for the destruction of the KeÅ¡vadeva temple. The Jats had risen in revolt under the leadership of Gokla (Gokul) after and not before Aurangzeb issued his firmÃ£n of April, 1969 ordering destruction of Hindu temples everywhere.

http://voi.org/books/htemples2/ch4.htm
It should be 1669 not 1969.

Gokula was the leader of the rebellion and was later publicly executed for refusing to convert.

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-18-2007

Thanks Bharatvarsh. Upon further reading the reference I had sited, it says that Raja Jai Singh led the Mughal armies in subjugating the Jat rebellion in the region, although failed to make much impression. How accurate or inaccurate is that?

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Bharatvarsh - 02-18-2007

QUOTEThanks Bharatvarsh. Upon further reading the reference I had sited, it says that Raja Jai Singh led the Mughal armies in subjugating the Jat rebellion in the region, although failed to make much impression. How accurate or inaccurate is that? 
I think it's accurate of the later rebellion under Churaman but not the one under Gokula.

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-18-2007

So chronology and relationship (if any) of these 3 events should fit together:

Event 1. Death of Raja Jai singh. One referece says:
QUOTEAlamgir was about fift years old when his downward course began.Â Raja Jai Singh, the old and able ruler of Amber, who had faithfully served under two generations of Mughals, died on July 10th, 1667...The raja was hardly gone before the emporer began to persecute the Hindus.Â Discontent from this cause became general in the beginning of 1669, when the great temple of Keshav Dev was demolished at Muttra, and a Mosque erected which still stands at the site.
link


Event 2. Destruction of Sri Krishna Janma Bhumi temple. Several sources unanimously place this date to February 1669, as per previous posts of yours and mine.

Event 3. Rebellion of Jats under Gokul (Kokil in old sources) in Mathura region. Remember we are talking about Jat rebellion and not Bundel rebellion here. Both have taken place at around the similar times (?). Orchha was center of Bundel rebels, while Kota, Mathura, Bharatpur etc. of Jat rebellion.

So per your inputs, following two inferences can be drawn:

a) Jat rebellion happened AFTER the destruction of the temple, not before. (therefore could not be the reason for the temple destruction)

b) Raja Jai Singh led the Mughal armies to quell Jat rebellion, though a LATER rebellion, after the one of Gokul. (Therefore both rebellions must have happened while Jai Singh was alive)

Both of the above, don't go well together, due to the chronology. Therefore there must be an inaccuracy in one of the above dates or relationships. Which one is that? What is wrong?

Digvijay, is it possible for you to please verify from Rajput sources the date when Jai Singh died, and his role in Jat rebellion, led by Gokul and Churaman?

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Bharatvarsh - 02-18-2007

Bodhi I think you are talk about Mirza Jai Singh who didn't supress any jat rebellion because he wasn't alive then and the author was talking about sawai jai singh (builder of jantar mantar).

Jat rebellion happened after aurangzeb issued the order for mandir demolition, this was lead by Gokula and quickly supressed.

Later on Rajaram lead another uprising and the jats avenged gokula's death by ransacking akbar's mausoleum and carrying off some muslim women, after him came Churaman and after him came Badan Singh and then Surajmal (by this time it wasn't rebellion anymore since Bharatpur was already established).

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-20-2007

my mistake, Bharatvarsh, got it.

x-posting an earlier post of yours: Veer Gokul Singh (Martyred 1670) and Alleged conversion of Gokul's family to Islam? by Ravi Chaudhary.

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-20-2007

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 18 2007, 08:47 PM)......
Digvijay, is it possible for you to please verify from Rajput sources the date when Jai Singh died, and his role in Jat rebellion, led by Gokul and Churaman?
[right][snapback]64595[/snapback][/right]

Bodhi,

The confusion is because there are two Amer monarchs with the same name, Jai Singh. Mirza Raja Jai Singh died in 1667 A.D. His son was Ram Singh (who helped Shivaji escape from clutches of Aurangzeb)

The younger Jai Singh i.e Sawai Jai Singh was born in 1688 A.D.. His father was Vishnu Singh and mother Indra Kunwarani, daughter of Kashi Singh Jodha of Khairwa. Sawai Jai Singh did fight against Churaman Jat between 1716-1718 A.D. after he returned from the governorship of Malwa.

Then Mohakam Singh, son of Churaman revolted and Badan Singh, cousin of Mohakam Singh, with the help of Jai Singh drove out Mohakam from Thun and Badan became the chief of Jats. This happened in 1722 A.D.

-Digvijay

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Hauma Hamiddha - 02-21-2007

There are many accounts of the Jaziya incident floating around in literature, but the account by the official apologist of Awrangzeb is the clearest and from the horse's mouth. In consultation with his mullahs Awranzeb imposed Jaziya on all dhimmis in the Mogol empire. Under earlier Moslem tyrants, the brahmins were helped with their Jaziya by various vaishyas in and around Delhi, but Awrangzeb made it clear that the brahmins should pay it themselves and get two whacks from the tax-collector's cane while paying. A vast throng of Hindus of Delhi and the environs assembled below the Shahi Jharokha begging the Padishaw to revoke the Jaziya as Akbar had done. The Padishaw asked them get lost. The coming Friday they resorted to an initially peaceful protest. The Hindu gathered in thousands on the road to the Jami Masjid where the Padishaw went for his namaaz and protested the imposition of Jaziya. Awrangzeb called this elephant division and behind it placed his heavy cavalry and asked them charge the Hindu crowds. The Hindus continued to protest and hundreds of them were killed by the elephants and yet more cut down by the cavalry charge that followed. These protests and similar strikes by Awrangzeb went on for several days. Hundreds were killed daily by the repeated elephant charges on the peacefully protesting Hindus and streets of Delhi were heaped with corpses and smeared with blood. Khafi Khan reports that the protestors were mainly unarmed vaishyas, artisans, workmen and brahmins. Finally a few mustered courage and threw sticks at the Padishaw on two occasions. Once they managed to hurl bricks at him but his body guards took the blows and Awrangzeb was saved. The protests soon spread through India- they were particularly severe in Malwa and Burhanpur. Just then an earthquake struck in Sindh killing thousands and the local Hindus begged for revoking the Jaziya, but Awrang asked them to pay it or face death as Kaffirs. One Rajput captain in the Mogol Army, Subh Karn Rao was asked by a Moslem collector to pay Jaziya. He drew his sword and killed the tax-collector, resulting in much furore. But the Mogols fearing a major revolt merely demoted Rao. Near Delhi another Moslem tax-collector's beard and hair were pulled out he was sent back with his own hair as the Jaziya.

However, in the end Awarangzeb suppressed these revolts by simply bringing in the army to kill anyone who protested.

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-22-2007

QUOTE(digvijay @ Feb 20 2007, 09:28 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 18 2007, 08:47 PM)......
Digvijay, is it possible for you to please verify from Rajput sources the date when Jai Singh died, and his role in Jat rebellion, led by Gokul and Churaman?
[right][snapback]64595[/snapback][/right]

Bodhi,

The confusion is because there are two Amer monarchs with the same name, Jai Singh. Mirza Raja Jai Singh died in 1667 A.D. His son was Ram Singh (who helped Shivaji escape from clutches of Aurangzeb)

The younger Jai Singh i.e Sawai Jai Singh was born in 1688 A.D.. His father was Vishnu Singh and mother Indra Kunwarani, daughter of Kashi Singh Jodha of Khairwa. Sawai Jai Singh did fight against Churaman Jat between 1716-1718 A.D. after he returned from the governorship of Malwa.

Then Mohakam Singh, son of Churaman revolted and Badan Singh, cousin of Mohakam Singh, with the help of Jai Singh drove out Mohakam from Thun and Badan became the chief of Jats. This happened in 1722 A.D.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]64707[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Two questions about Jai Singh

How did he get the title of Mirza or who gave him that title? He was quite proud of it.
Which one went as a general on behalf of Aurangzeb to get Shivaji, or is that information not correct?

DILDAR

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-23-2007

QUOTE(Dildar @ Feb 22 2007, 02:36 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Feb 20 2007, 09:28 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 18 2007, 08:47 PM)......
Digvijay, is it possible for you to please verify from Rajput sources the date when Jai Singh died, and his role in Jat rebellion, led by Gokul and Churaman?
[right][snapback]64595[/snapback][/right]

Bodhi,

The confusion is because there are two Amer monarchs with the same name, Jai Singh. Mirza Raja Jai Singh died in 1667 A.D. His son was Ram Singh (who helped Shivaji escape from clutches of Aurangzeb)

The younger Jai Singh i.e Sawai Jai Singh was born in 1688 A.D.. His father was Vishnu Singh and mother Indra Kunwarani, daughter of Kashi Singh Jodha of Khairwa. Sawai Jai Singh did fight against Churaman Jat between 1716-1718 A.D. after he returned from the governorship of Malwa.

Then Mohakam Singh, son of Churaman revolted and Badan Singh, cousin of Mohakam Singh, with the help of Jai Singh drove out Mohakam from Thun and Badan became the chief of Jats. This happened in 1722 A.D.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]64707[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Two questions about Jai Singh

How did he get the title of Mirza or who gave him that title? He was quite proud of it.
Which one went as a general on behalf of Aurangzeb to get Shivaji, or is that information not correct?

DILDAR
[right][snapback]64843[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Akbar started calling Man Singh, his general, Mirza Raja Man Singh. So house of Amer kings became known by that name. It changed when Jai Singh, who was born in 1688, became known as Sawai Jai Singh. Story goes that as a young kid Jai Singh went to Delhi in last decade of 17th century and Aurangzeb holding his hand asked him if he was afraid to be at the court. Jai Singh replied that there is no question of being afraid because Aurangzeb had held his hand as married Hindu women hold the hand of their husbands, i.e there protectors. Aurang was dumbfounded by the reply and exclaimed this fellow is "Sawai" which in Hindi means 1.25x.

Mirza Jai Singh indeed fight against Shivaji and on his word Shivaji agreed to go to New Delhi to meet Aurang. Shivaji was looked after by Jai Singh's son Ram Singh. When it became apparent that the cunning Aurangzeb would not uphold his word given to Jai Singh about the safety of Shivaji, Ram Singh helped Shivaji and his son get out of Delhi.

In an earlier effort Maharaja Jaswant Singh was sent along with Shaista Khan to oppose Shivaji by Aurang. When Shivaji nailed Shaista it was assumed that Jaswant Singh was behind encouraging Shivaji's daring raid and Jaswant was promptly recalled and then Jai Singh was sent later on.
-Digvijay

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-24-2007

By Mugal days, Jesuit missionaries had become very active in India. With Goa as their base, they used to travel to different parts of India, and even participate in courts. Some of their accounts are very interesting (often funny) because of their uneducated and euro-centric views of what they saw in India. Some Jesuits traveled to Akbars court, and spent years with him, in hope to convert him to Christian religion.

AKBAR AND THE JESUITS - AN ACCOUNT OF THE JESUIT MISSIONS TO THE COURT OF AKBAR, BY FATHER PIERRE DU JARRIC, S. J.; Translated with Introduction and Notes by C. H. Payne; 1930

Above book is written by one such missionary, and recounts his days with Akbar. Author makes several tall claims (like converting thousands upon thousands of people, and Akbar and his sons being about ready for conversion themself and so on), but we can take those humorousely. This particular account shows how Akbar must have been a clever man, who used these Jesuits for his own purpose, while these folks thought they have plans for Akbar!

Overall, this narrative throws light not only on some aspects of Akbar's time, but also on early Jesuits in India. Reads almost like a fiction.

Likewise, the following book is the account of another Jesuit fellow who traveled to Jahangir's court: JAHANGIR AND THE JESUITS by Father Guerreiro Fernao, S. J. Published 1930

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 02-27-2007

Some interesting facts on the Jaipur Rajas from wiki. Apparently they worked under immense pressure and also suffered from Mughal persecution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_Singh_I

QUOTEIn 1638 the fort of Kandahar was surrendered by its Persian commander, Ali Mardan Khan, to Shah Jahan. The emperor's son Shuja, accompanied by Jai Singh, was sent to take delivery of this important fort. To overawe the Persian Shah from interfering in this task, Shah Jahan assembled a 50,000 strong army in Kabul. On this occasion Jai Singh received the unique title of Mirza Raja from Shah Jahan, which had earlier been given to his great-grandfather Raja Man Singh I of Amber by Emperor Akbar.

QUOTEIn 1649 another blow knocked down Mughal prestigeââKandahar was recovered by Shah Abbas II. The Mughals twice attempted to eject the Persians from Kandahar under the command of Prince Aurangzeb (in 1649 and 1652)ââon both occasions Raja Jai Singh was present as an army commander, but the attempts failed due to the lack of adequate artillery and poor marksmanship of the Mughal gunners.

A third grand attempt was made in 1653 under the command of Shah Jahan's oldest and favorite son Dara Shikoh, a deadly rival of Aurangzeb, and again Jai Singh was sent with this army. Prince Dara was knowledgeable in spiritual matters and was refreshingly secular in his outlook, but these noble qualities were marred by his military incompetence and his flattering and foolish advisers. Dara was particularly harsh on officers that had taken part in the earlier campaigns under Aurangzeb and repeatedly taunted Jai Singh for those failures. But when his own campaign ended with the same result, the Mughals finally gave up all attempts to recover Kandahar.

Dara continued his hostility towards Jai Singh on return to Agraââno promotions or awards were given to the veteran general for skilfully covering the army's retreat. Instead Jaswant Singh of the rival Rathor clan was made commander of 6000 and received the superlative title of Maharaja.

QUOTEUnlike the previous Mughal generals, the Rajput chief's policy was not to crush Shivaji but to conciliate him. After capturing his main fort of Purandar Treaty of Purandar (1665) was signed, Jai Singh convinced Shivaji to come to terms and join him in an invasion of Bijapur, which would be beneficial for both sides. For this triumph Jai Singh, already the highest ranking general, received rich gifts in gold and silverââboth his sons, Ram Singh and Kirat Singh, were raised in rank. The latter was serving under his father while the former was acting as his agent at the Mughal court...

<b>Unlike other generals who had failed in the Deccan, Jai Singh was punished harshly, partly because he was also held responsible for his son's actions at Agra, and partly because he was a Hindu. For the expenses of this campaign the Rajput general had received only 3 million rupees from Aurangzeb, and had spent 10 million rupees from the accumulated hoards in his ancestral kingdom. Not a pice of this money was compensated by his ungrateful masterââprobably the opportunity of ruining a leading Hindu chief was too tempting for Aurangzeb. Only two years after Jai Singh's demise Aurangzeb passed an order (1669) calling for the demolition of Hindu temples in the Mughal provinces</b>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsingh_I

QUOTEIt happened to be the emperor's birthday and robes of honor were given to the high ranked nobles like the prime minister Jafer Khan and Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur (commander of 6000. But the highest ranking Mughal noble was Raja Jai Singh I, a commander of 7000). All this while Shivaji had been forgotten and was inwardly fretting in the back row of nobles. When he learnt that he had been made a commander of 5000 Shivaji cried out, "What! My little son was made a commander of 5000 (after the treaty of Purandar with Raja Jai Singh) without coming to court...am I after all these services (aiding in the invasion of Bijapur), and coming all the way to court, to get the same rank?"

On further enquiry he learnt that the noble in front of him was Rai Singh, also a commander of 5000 but of a higher grade, Shivaji exclaimed, "Rai Singh! A mere subordinate of Raja Jai Singh! Am I to be considered only equal to him?" His loud voice and angry gestures caused a minor commotion...Ram Singh came to him and tried to calm him down but the Maratha king wrenched his hand away and began walking away. Due to his agitated state he finally sat down near a pillar....when Aurangzeb enquired as to the cause Ram Singh diplomatically replied, "The tiger is a wild beast of the forest and feels oppressed by the heat in a place like this and has taken ill." Aurangzeb allowed him to be taken away to Ram Singh's camp.

For the next three days Shivaji refused to appear in court, returned the rank of nobility, and accused the Mughals of being faithless. Aurangzeb decided to kill or at least imprison himââwhereupon Ram Singh told the emperor to first kill him and his Rajput soldiers, who were honor-bound by his father's oath to Shivaji, before even a hair of the Maratha's head was touched. Aurangzeb allowed Ram Singh to keep him in his care but only after the Rajput prince signed a bond (15 May) taking full responsibility for the Maratha king.

QUOTESince Shivaji had escaped from the midst of Ram Singh's camp, Aurangzeb's suspicion naturally fell on Ram Singh for the feat. Some Maratha Brahmins confessed under torture that Ram Singh had connived at Shivaji's escape to honor the oath taken by his father. Ram Singh's rank was reduced by 1000, his estates were taken away, and he was banished from the Mughal court. Nearly a year later the Kachwaha prince was permitted to enter the court and his estates were restored (March 1667).

Meanwhile, in the south, his father Jai Singh was also harshly punished for the failure of his Bijapur invasionââunlike the Muslim generals who had also failed but were always in Aurangzeb's favor. Weighed down by these losses and the removal of his son from an influential post, Raja Jai Singh breathed his last in August 1667. Ram Singh became the next Raja of Amber (10 September) with Aurangzeb putting the tika (paint mark) on his forehead. (This was the last occasion that this ceremony, started by the great Akbar as a means of honoring the leading Hindu Rajas, was performed. Aurangzeb eventually stopped this ceremony as a Hindu practice in his Islamic state.)

QUOTEWhen in 1676 Ram Singh returned to Agra as commander of 5000, Aurangzeb was engrossed in the frontier wars with the Pashtun tribes. But on the petering out of that conflict a bigger storm arose, which was destined to overthrow the Mughal Empire. In 1679, taking advantage of Maharaja Jaswant Singh's death in Afghanistan, Aurangzeb occupied his Kingdom of Marwar and simultaneously imposed the jaziya tax on the non-Muslims. The earlier decree of 1669 on temple destruction was now openly enforced and extended into the Rajput territories like Marwar, Mewar, Shekhawati, Bundelkhand, and Malwa.

However an alliance of the Rajput clans, and the desertion of Aurangzeb's son Sultan Muhammad Akbar to the Rajputs and Marathas, completely altered the situation. The insurrection spread among the Bhatis, Hadas, Gaurs, and there was a danger that the Amber Kachwahas could join their subordinate clansmen the Shekhawats. So before leaving for the Deccan in 1681 Aurangzeb appointed Ram Singh and his clansmen to a military outpost in Afghanistan so that they couldn't influence events in Rajputana.

In any case Ram Singh did not have the forceful personality, military ability, or even influence among the Mughal nobility that the accomplished Jai Singh had always commanded. Any progress in his career had been marred by the machinations of the bigoted Aurangzeb who had first punished him unjustly and then denied him the full resources to fight in Assam. With such a weak ruler at the helm, Amber state had to stay loyal to the Mughals and attempt to regain its influential position through military service. But even this did not happen in the reign of Ram Singh or his immediate successor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishan_Singh

QUOTERaja Bishan Singh was thus the first ruler of Amber (since the days of the great Man Singh) to sit on the throne without any rank or status in the Mughal nobility. So when Aurangzeb recognized Bishan Singh as Raja (30 April, 1688), made him commander of 2500 (cavalry), and gave him a cash advance for their maintenance, it seemed that the Amber royal family had come out of its dark days. Unfortunately this restoration came with a harsh conditionââBishan Singh was commanded to uproot the Jat rebels in the Agra province or these grants would be revoked.

At this stage, while Aurangzeb was fighting in the Deccan Wars, North India was also covered by strife. The main rebellions were of the Rajputs in Rajasthan, Malwa, Gujarat, Bundelkhandââonly the three weak states of Amber, Bundi, and Datia were in Mughal service, and were being used mostly against their own Hindu brethren by the cunning Aurangzeb. The other major rebellions were of the Sikhs in Punjab and the Jats in Agra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_Singh_II

QUOTEWhen Jai Singh sat on the ancestral throne at Amber, he had barely enough resources to pay for the support of 1000 cavalryâthis abysmal situation had arisen in the past 32 years, coinciding with the reign of the bigoted Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb....

The death of Aurangzeb (1707) at first only increased Jai Singhâs troubles. His patrons Bidar Bakht and his father Azam were on the losing side in the Mughal war of successionâthe victorious Bahadur Shah continued Aurangzebâs hostile and bigoted policy towards the Rajputs by attempting to occupy their lands. Sawai Jai Singh formed an alliance with the other Rajput states, which defeated and expelled the Mughals from Rajputana....

The Jats, like other Hindus and Sikhs, had been provoked into rebellion by the bigoted policies of Aurangzeb and the harshness of his local Muslim governors. While Aurangzeb was sinking deeper into the morass of his Deccan Wars, the Jats successfully overthrew the Mughal maladministration in Agra province. But in later years some Jat war bands began attacking and plundering civiliansââtheir chief Churaman even sent 6000 of his soldiers to aid the later Mughals in their wars against the Rajput alliance (1708-10). Sawai Jai Singh could not tolerate such disturbances in his province and he attacked the Jat stronghold of Thun in 1722....

Jai Singhâs greatest achievement was the construction of Jaipur city, which later became the capital of the modern Indian state of Rajasthan. Construction of the new capital began as early as 1725 although it was in 1727 that the foundation stone was ceremonially laid, and by 1733 Jaipur officially replaced Amber as capital of the Kachawahas. Built on the ancient Hindu grid pattern, found in the archaeological ruins of 3000 BCE, it was designed by the Brahmin Vidyadhar who was educated in the ancient Sanskrit manuals (silpa-sutras) on city-panning and architecture. Merchants from all over India settled down in the relative safety of this rich city, protected by thick walls, and a garrison of 17,000 supported by adequate artillery.

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Hauma Hamiddha - 02-27-2007

While Jai Singh and Ram Singh are commonly called traitorous Hindus, I think one must judge them more leniently. They were after all like many of us toiling in the mlechCha-desha bound by salary and life-style, exploited by mlechCha master for their own benefit. I think the above characterization of Ram Singh is pretty negative -- Ram Singh did show considerable innovativeness in the Assam wars fought with limited resources and negative Mogol officers. But it was difficult terrain for anyone except the locals. On the whole the rajput generals it appears did have problems from Moslems units that were placed under them. In the Deccan the problems between Jai Singh and Diler Khan were well known. It also appears that Bahadur Khan in the Salheri battles let the Rajput divisions bear the brunt of the assault from the Marathas while withdrawing the Moslem division. But it was intercepted by another Maratha force and smashed.

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Hauma Hamiddha - 02-28-2007

In my studies, the only Moslem to issue coins with Hindu themes was the Mogol tyrant Akbar. This Sitaram coins are precious finds in in India and it was considered a sign of luck if Hindus found them.
See attached image

Mughals - How Tyrannic And Oppressive - Guest - 03-01-2007

Hauma Hamiddha Ji, that is a very surprising and great information. How do we know it was indeed issued by Akbar? Are there inscriptions or date on these coins? Do you have the image of the other side of the coin too?

Meanwhile, here is an interesting part from Akbar and Jesuits pp68-69. Not sure how accurate or reliable, since some things can not be facts...

QUOTEHe showed much affection for the Fathers, and obtained for them from the King all that they desired. The firÂ£t day they spoke with him, he promised to find the means for the ereftion of a church, and obtained from his father a site for the building. He afterwards confirmed this, and said he would see that some of his father's officers were appointed to take the matter in hand. The King also gave the Fathers permission to baptise all who wished to become Christians.

He has, wrote the same Father Xauier, praftically banished the sect of Mahomet from this country; so that in the town of Lahor there is not now a single mosque for the use of the Saracens; for those which were formerly there have been, by his orders, turned into tables, or into public granaries for the Slorage of wheat, rice, and other grain.

The Alcorans also have been levelled with the ground. Besides this, the King, on every Friday, which is the day the Saracens regard as holy, has brought before him forty or fifty boars, which are provoked to fight with one another; and he has their tusks mounted in gold. It is said that he does this for the sole purpose of bringing additional contempt on the Saracens, who detect these animals above all things.Â By these and similar means he has deprived the Mahometan law of much of its credit in these parts.

And yet one does not know for certain what law he follows; for though he is certainly not a Mahometan, as his a&ions show plainly enough; and though <span style='color:red'>he seems to incline more to the superstitions of the Pagans, Gentiles being more welcome at his court than Mahometans, he cannot be called an Ethnique; for he adores and recognises the true God, the maker of heaven and earth; and yet, at the same time, </span> <b><span style='color:red'>he worships the sun</span></b>.

It is the opinion of many, says the same Father, that he aims at making a new religion, of which he himself is to be the head; and it is said that he already has numerous followers; but that these are for the most part flatterers, or people who have been bribed by money. It is more or less certain that he has a ftrong desire to be looked upon, and esteemed as a God, or some great Prophet; and he would have people believe that he performs miracles, healing the sick with the water with which he washes his feet.Â Many young women pay vows to him to get their children cured, or that they may have children. And if these things come to pass, they bring him offerings, as to a saint, which, though they may be of little worth, are willingly received and highly valued by him.

Thus did Father Xauier write of this Prince, showing whither ambition leads those who are unrestrained by the fear of that sovereign Monarch who cafts down the mighty from their thrones, and exalts them that are humble. Some think, says the same Father, that he follows the opinions of the Verteas (of whom we have spoken in Book II). <span style='color:blue'>(Who is being referred here by 'Verteas'?)</span>

But it seems probable that he is drifting hither and thither, like a ship without a rudder, not knowing what haven to make for. He frequently urges the Fathers to acquire the Persian language, in order that he may discourse with them without an interpreter; and once he sent word to them by a certain person high in his confidence, and whom he employed on matters of a religious nature, that if they underwood Persian they could cut the knot by which the bonds that held him fast were secured.