Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad?

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Archives (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Library & Bookmarks (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+--- Thread: Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? (/showthread.php?tid=548)

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Guest - 08-07-2006

Salam Indian brothers,

I am wondering whether Mughal rule was all that bad. Let's analyze a little and find out.

Accusation#1: There was opppression during mughal rule
Response: There was oppression prior to mughal rule, such as caste discrimination, despotism and so on.

Accusation#2: Mughals killed a lot of people.
Response: It was the medieval times, people were killing each other all over the world.

Accusation#3: Mughals killed in the name of religion.
Response: vaishnvaas and shiavas were killing each other in the name of their respective religions.

Accusation#4: Mughals plundered temples.
Response: So did hindu kings. Even today, are you not accusing your own leaders of plundering temples? And those secular leaders whom you accuse did not come from Mars, they're from the hindu community.

Accusation#5: Women were raped mercilessly.
Response: In the 21st century, in a developed USA, women are going through this merciless punishment. So why single out something that happend in the medieval times, when even so-called modern, progressive people are much worse?

Accusation#6: India became poor due to mughal rule, but Brits gave us railways. <!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' />
Response: The fact that Indians prostrate in front of white people never ceases to amaze me. Due to Bengal famine alone, 30m people died. But Indians love to ignore that and focus on their contributions, whatever they are. But in the case of Mughals, why not do the same? Aha, we all know why, don't we?

Accusation#7: Mughals didn't contribute.
response: why should they? They were conquerors, they did not come to India to do social service. Like other races at the time, they too wanted to conquer and earn wealth. So why blame them, when the whole world was doing the same?

There are many more accusations which can be answered adequately, the chief of it being medieval times and the whole world was barbaric. So to accuse the mughals alone would be hypocritical. I am not sure if you guys will ban me for this post, even though i haven't said anything vulgar. I am just voicing a different view, that's all.

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Guest - 08-07-2006

QUOTE(akbarkhan @ Aug 7 2006, 12:08 PM)Salam Indian brothers,

I am wondering whether Mughal rule was all that bad. Let's analyze a little and find out.

People don't reply to such outrageous ideas propounded in the name of logical questions. Nevertheless, in the hope that some sense will dawn on you, I am writing a reply

Accusation#1: There was opppression during mughal rule
Response: There was oppression prior to mughal rule, such as caste discrimination, despotism and so on.

Please read the various caste related discussions here before you start comparing the so called "caste discrimination" happened before Mughal rule. To compare religious taxing, sustained rape of women (and considering there were arabs, I am sure they did a lot of men and boy rape as well), slavery, systematic destruction and looting of temples with caste discrimination is bloody arogant of you

Accusation#2: Mughals killed a lot of people.
Response: It was the medieval times, people were killing each other all over the world.

So the Mughals were no different than other barbarians from the North and the west. Sort of contradicting your thread title, don't you think?

Accusation#3: Mughals killed in the name of religion.
Response: vaishnvaas and shiavas were killing each other in the name of their respective religions.

Any sources for this? - other than (jihadi / christian missionary) websites?
Accusation#4: Mughals plundered temples.
Response: So did hindu kings. Even today, are you not accusing your own leaders of plundering temples? And those secular leaders whom you accuse did not come from Mars, they're from the hindu community.

Again, your statements show the bigots you people are - I am not going to defend the great Hindu kings, or the "secular" leaders of my country - We Hindus know the difference between them and the Mughals

Accusation#5: Women were raped mercilessly.
Response: In the 21st century, in a developed USA, women are going through this merciless punishment. So why single out something that happend in the medieval times, when even so-called modern, progressive people are much worse?

I don't see any other point in your so called "legitimate" questions other than more bigotry

Accusation#6: India became poor due to mughal rule, but Brits gave us railways. <!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' />
Response: The fact that Indians prostrate in front of white people never ceases to amaze me. Due to Bengal famine alone, 30m people died. But Indians love to ignore that and focus on their contributions, whatever they are. But in the case of Mughals, why not do the same? Aha, we all know why, don't we?

...and more bigotry

Accusation#7: Mughals didn't contribute.
response: why should they? They were conquerors, they did not come to India to do social service. Like other races at the time, they too wanted to conquer and earn wealth. So why blame them, when the whole world was doing the same?

...and more bigotry

There are many more accusations which can be answered adequately, the chief of it being medieval times and the whole world was barbaric. So to accuse the mughals alone would be hypocritical. I am not sure if you guys will ban me for this post, even though i haven't said anything vulgar. I am just voicing a different view, that's all.
[right][snapback]55153[/snapback][/right]

If your so called "rebutals to accusations" are like the above, I suggest you take them to the unmentionable forums from where you come (Hint: The people from the North West of the erstwhile Akhanda Bharat)

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Bharatvarsh - 08-07-2006

QUOTEAccusation#1: There was opppression during mughal rule
Response: There was oppression prior to mughal rule, such as caste discrimination, despotism and so on.
But the opression of lower castes increased a hundred fold under Muslim rule through the extra taxes levied on Hindus and the looting of peasents done by Muslim rulers.
QUOTEAccusation#2: Mughals killed a lot of people.
Response: It was the medieval times, people were killing each other all over the world.
But they were not killing each other in India prior to Muslim rule, in India civilians were not massacred and the rule was scruplously followed in most cases, the very fact that Ashoka felt remorse after his Kalinga massacre indicates the radically different standards between Hindu and Muslim rulers.
QUOTEAccusation#3: Mughals killed in the name of religion.
Response: vaishnvaas and shiavas were killing each other in the name of their respective religions.
Rubbish, show us evidence that Shaivas and Vaishnavas were killing each other, infact many of the Hindu kings whether Shaiva or Vaishnava also patronised and gave grants to other temples including Jain and Buddhist ones and Portuguese travellers like Nuniz and Paes mention that the Vijayanagara rulers (Hindu empire par excellence) were tolerant towards all faiths. Forget about Vaishnavas and Shaivas, here we have a Hindu king who after witnessing the atrocities committed by Muslims everywhere in South India who did the following:
QUOTE"Deo Roy upon this gave orders for the entertainment of mussulmauns
in his service, allotted them jaghires,[112] erected a mosque
for their use in the city of Beejanuggur, and commanded that no
one should molest them in the exercise of their religion. He also
ordered a koraun to be placed before his throne, on a rich desk,
that the mussulmauns might perform the ceremony of obeisance in his
presence, without sinning against their laws.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext02/fevch10.txt
QUOTEAccusation#4: Mughals plundered temples.
Response: So did hindu kings. Even today, are you not accusing your own leaders of plundering temples? And those secular leaders whom you accuse did not come from Mars, they're from the hindu community.
Evidnce please that Hindu kings plundered temples, we have Harsha of Kashmir plundering Buddhist monastaries and Hindu mandirs but then Kalhana himself mentions in the Rajtarangini that having employed so many Turks (Muslims) he behaved like a Turk himself. As for modern politicians, they are looting money not slaughtering cows in Hindu mandirs and smashing the murtis to pieces and a person has to be really dumb to compare the two.
QUOTEAccusation#5: Women were raped mercilessly.
Response: In the 21st century, in a developed USA, women are going through this merciless punishment. So why single out something that happend in the medieval times, when even so-called modern, progressive people are much worse?
You are really shameless aren't you, what has USA got to do with this, when Hindus came to power we didn't rape Muslim women under Marathas, infact Shivaji treated all women who fell into his hands (including Muslim women) honourably as mentioned by Khafi Khan (who cannot mention his name without throwing abuse), here is what Khan says:
QUOTEBut he made it a rule that wherever his followers went plundering, they should do no harm to the mosques, the Book of God, or the women of any one. Whenever a copy of the sacred KurÃ¡n came into his hands, he treated it with respect, and gave it to some of his MusulmÃ¡n followers. When the women of any HindÃº or Muhammadan were taken prisoners by his men, and they had no friend to protect them, he watched over them until their relations came with a suitable ransom to buy their liberty.

http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=80201017&ct=61
We don't measure the Mughals against USA standards but the standards set by their Hindu contemporaries like Shvaji and others.
QUOTEAccusation#6: India became poor due to mughal rule, but Brits gave us railways.Â
Response: The fact that Indians prostrate in front of white people never ceases to amaze me. Due to Bengal famine alone, 30m people died. But Indians love to ignore that and focus on their contributions, whatever they are. But in the case of Mughals, why not do the same? Aha, we all know why, don't we?
Actually its Muslims who prostrated before the British not Indians (which includes Hindus), everyone knows that Syed Ahmed Khan was a British lackey and told Muslims that British rule was their best bet, here is some info:
QUOTEIt was at this critical juncture in the history of Islam in India that Sir Syed Ahmed stepped forward. âHe was a pupil of the famous MawlÃ£nÃ£ a MamlÃ»k âAli who was entirely a product of the WalÃ®-uâllahÃ® school and tradition. It was perhaps because of this relationship that he claimed to be a WahhÃ£bÃ®â¦â14 But now on the word âWahabiâ was to acquire a new meaning. He had been a protege of the British for a long time. He had sided with his masters during the jihÃ£d of 1857. Soon after the jihÃ£d failed, he came out with a book, The Loyal Mohammedans of India. He travelled to England in 1869 and wrote as follows from there to a friend in India: âWithout flattering the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low, merchants and petty shopkeepers, educated and illiterate, when contrasted with the English in education, manners and uprightness, are as like them as a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man. Do you look upon an animal as a thing to be honoured? Do you think it necessary to treat an animal courteously, or the reverse? We have no right to courteous treatment. The English have reason for believing us in India to be imbecile brutes.â15

Here was the man the British were looking for. The rest of his role is too well-known to be repeated here. He was undoubtedly the father of the two-nation theory which led later on to the demand for Pakistan. He became a bitter opponent of the Indian National Congress as soon as it was founded in 1885. He decried parliamentary democracy as a plot to put the âbrute Hindu majorityâ into power. He led a hate campaign against the Bengalis who were in the forefront of the fight for freedom. He was all for a fight against Hindi attaining an equal status with Urdu. And he tried his best to build bridges between Christianity on the one hand and Islam on the other. The nett result of his Aligarh Movement was to convert the Muslim community into a close preserve of toadyism (jee-huzÃ»rÃ®) towards the British. The British on their part responded positively, and made many concessions to the Muslims. This co-operation between British imperialism and the residues of Islamic imperialism continued till the creation of Pakistan, except for a brief period of bad blood during the Khilafat agitation.

Five years after Sir Syedâs death in 1898, his successor, Viqar-ul-Mulk, wrote a letter to The Pioneer of Lucknow. He said: âWe start with the firm conviction and seek to implant it in the mind of every Indian Musalman that our destiny is now bound up with the presence and permanence of British rule in this country, and that in the government of the day we have got our best and surest friend.â17

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/muslimsep/ch7.htm
No wonder then that even the tiny minority of Sikhs made more of a contribution to the freedom movement than Muslims ever did (Muslims were too busy having wet dreams of good old Mughal Empire to do anything of use).

As for the positives of Mughal rule, if there are any then they would be recognised, all they did was loot Hindus and persecute Hindus and Sikhs and massacre us by the millions, atleast under the British we could practice our religion without Muslim persecution.
QUOTEAccusation#7: Mughals didn't contribute.
response: why should they? They were conquerors, they did not come to India to do social service. Like other races at the time, they too wanted to conquer and earn wealth. So why blame them, when the whole world was doing the same?
No they wanted to conquer, earn wealth but above all they wanted to wage a Jihad against Hindus which no Hindu or Sikh kings did which is why Mughals were and always will be foreigners to Hindus and detestable imperialists on par with the British (infact they surpass the British).

Hindus never hesitated to honor kings considered to be of a different religion if they were truly great, that is why Maharaja Ranjit Singh is considered the Lion of Punjab even though he was a Sikh even by Punjabi Hindus and is considered as one of the national heroes of Hindustan.

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Guest - 08-07-2006

QUOTEAccusation#5: Women were raped mercilessly.
Response: In the 21st century, in a developed USA, women are going through this merciless punishment. So why single out something that happend in the medieval times, when even so-called modern, progressive people are much worse?
akbarkhan,
Have you checked your own family history how they became Muslim?
Are they from invaders Harem or incest or they were just pathetic coward and greedy?

I will be really saddened if you are from Harem product, because those woman really suffered in Harem, where 100s of thousand of Hindu women were raped continuously and their kids where thrown in Madarasa and later forced to work in Mughal army. Majority of Paki and South Indian Muslims are product of those days. Worst, what those woman went through, even their own children refuse to acknowledge now. Till today they are promoting abusers religion. What a tragedy? <!--emo& Sad

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Guest - 08-07-2006

QUOTE(Gargi @ Aug 7 2006, 07:39 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEAccusation#5: Women were raped mercilessly.
Response: In the 21st century, in a developed USA, women are going through this merciless punishment. So why single out something that happend in the medieval times, when even so-called modern, progressive people are much worse?
akbarkhan,
Have you checked your own family history how they became Muslim?
Are they from invaders Harem or incest or they were just pathetic coward and greedy?

I will be really saddened if you are from Harem product, because those woman really suffered in Harem, where 100s of thousand of Hindu women were raped continuously and their kids where thrown in Madarasa and later forced to work in Mughal army. Majority of Paki and South Indian Muslims are product of those days. Worst, what those woman went through, even their own children refuse to acknowledge now. Till today they are promoting abusers religion. What a tragedy? <!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

Indian Muslims are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, they are still in love with their own abusers.
[right][snapback]55159[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Good going Gargi. Quite motivating to see a Hindu woman speak up against Hindu oppression. We need more aware women like you.!! Kudos for givin them back.

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Guest - 08-07-2006

There are some well documented material available on Harems in Bhawalpur (now in Pakistan), Delhi and Tipu Sultan armies Harem. Some facts are available on, what arab armies did to Women after looting Somnath temples.

Anyway for Muslims, woman is nothing, so who cares what happened to their mothers or great... grand mothers. They are in love with invaders and plunders and proud of their act and still continuing their saga in India.

AkbharKhan is a good example, how he justifying everything. This tells what their state of mind is.

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Guest - 08-07-2006

An Islamic Voyage
A Criminal Enterprise

Gargi,
This part of books reflects what you are saying. I can imagine.

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Guest - 08-07-2006

Shah Jahan had several wives and five thousand concubines in his harem. He is also said to have had incestuous relations with his daughters Chamani and Jahanara. His favorite wife was Mumtaz Mahal, The "Ornament of the Palace". She was as fanatical a Muslim as her husband. Despite his Rajput (Hindu) mother, Shah Jahan shared none of his father's and grandfather's liberal views on religion.

A Hindu was made to give up his Muslim wife or convert to Islam. (Kashmir is now predominantly Muslim due to Shah Jahan's policies). In 1632 he ordered that all Hindu temples recently erected or in the course of construction should be razed to the ground.

In a manner befitting the Prophet he had ten thousand inhabitants executed by being "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire". Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were tortured to try to convert them to Islam. Only a few apostacised, the remainder were trampled to death by elephants, except for the younger women who went to harems

link

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Guest - 08-07-2006

QUOTEAlauddin became Sultan in 1296 AD after murdering his uncle and father-in-law, Jalaluddin. In 1298 AD he equipped an expedition to Gujarat under his generals Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan. The invaders plundered the ports of Surat and Cambay. The temple of Somnath, which had been rebuilt by the Hindus, was plundered and the idol taken to Delhi for being trodden upon by the Muslims. The whole region was subjected to fire and sword, and Hindus were slaughtered en masse. Kampala Devi, the queen of Gujarat, was captured along with the royal treasury, brought to Delhi and forced into Alauddin's harem.Â .

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - Guest - 08-07-2006

Destruction of Hindu Temples by Aurangzeb 
By Rajiv Varma

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Islamic literary sources provide far more extensive evidence of temple destruction by the Muslim invaders of India in medieval times. They also cover a large area, from Sinkiang and Transoxiana in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South, and from Siestan province of present day Iran in the West to Assam in the East. This vast area, which was long the cradle of hindu culture, came to be littered with the ruins of temples and monasteries, belonging to all schools of Santana Dharma - Baudhha, Jaina, Shaiva, Sakta, Vaishnava, and the rest. Archeological explorations and excavations in modern times have proved unmistakably that most of the mosques, mazars, ziarats and dargahs which were built in this area, stood on the sites of and were made from the materials of deliberately demolished Hindu monuments.

Hundreds of medieval muslim historians who flourished in India and elsewhere in the world of Islam, have written detailed accounts of what their heroes did in various parts of the extensive Hindu homeland as they were invaded one after another. It is alear from the literary evidence collected alone that all Muslim rulers destroyed or desecrated Hindu temples whenever and whereever they could. Archeological evidence from various Muslim monuments, particularly mosques and dargahs, not only confirms the literary evidence but also adds the names of some Muslim rulers whom Muslim historians have failed to credit with this pious performance.

Some of the literary evidence of temple destruction during Aurangzeb's rule is listed below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. "Mir'at-i-Alam" by Bakhtawar Khan
The author was a nobleman of Aurangzeb's court. He died in AD 1684. the history ascribed to him was really compiled by Muhammad Baqa of Saharanpur who gave the name of his friend as its author. Baqa was a prolific writer who was invited by Bakhtawar Khan to Aurangzeb's court and given a respectable rank. He died in AD 1683.

Excerpts:

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707) General Order

" ...Hindu writers have been entirely excluded from holding public offices, and ALL THE WORSHIPPING PLACES OF THE INFIDELS AND GREAT TEMPLES of these infamous people HAVE BEEN THROWN DOWN AND DESTROYED in a manner which excites astonishment at the successful completion of so difficult a task. His Majesty personally teaches the sacred kalima to many infidels with success. ... All mosques in the empire are repaired at public expense..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. "Alamgir-Nama" by Mirza Muhammad Kazim
This work, written in AD 1688 contains a history of the first ten years of Aurangzeb's reign.

Excerpts:

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707) Palamau (Bihar)

" ...In 1661 Aurangzeb in his zeal to uphold the law of Islam sent orders to his viceroy in Bihar, Daud Khan, to conquer Palamau. In the military operations that followed MANY TEMPLES WERE DESTROYED..."

Koch Bihar (Bengal)

" ...Towards the end of the same year when Mir Jumla made a war on the Raja of Kuch Bihar, the MUGHALS DESTROYED MANY TEMPLES during the course of their operations. IDOLS WERE BROKEN AND SOME TEMPLES WERE CONVERTED INTO MOSQUES. ..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. "Mas'ir-i-'Alamgiri" by Saqi Must'ad Khan
The author completed this history in 1710 at the behest of Inayatu''llah Khan Kashmiri, Aurangzeb's last secretary and favorite disciple in state policy and religiosity. The materials which Must'ad Khan used in this history of Aurangzeb's reign came mostly from the State archives.

Excerpts:

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707) General Order

"...The Lord Cherisher of the faith learnt that in the provinces of Tatta, Multan, and especially at Benaras, the Brahmin misbelievers used to teach their false books in their established schools, and that admirers and students both Hindu and Muslim, used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire this vile learning. His majesty, eager to establish Islam, issues orders to the governors of all the provinces TO DEMOLISH THE SCHOOLS AND TEMPLES OF THE INFIDELS and with utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers..."

Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)

" ...It was reported that, according to the Emperor's command, his officers HAD DEMOLISHED THE TEMPLE OF VISHWANATH AT KASHI. ..." Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)

" ... During this month of Ramzan abounding in miracles, the Emperor as the promoter of justice and overthrower of mischief, as the knower of truth and destroyer of oppression, as the zephyr of the garden of victory and the reviver of the faith of the Prophet, ISSUED ORDERS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE TEMPLE SITUATED IN MATHURA< FAMOUS AS THE DEHRA OF KESHO RAI. In the short time by the great exertions of his officers the DESTRUCTION OF THIS STRONG FOUNDATION OF INFIDELITY WAS ACCOMPLISHED< AND ON ITS SITE A LOFTY MOSQUE WAS BUILT at the expenditure of a large sum..."

" ...Praised be the August God of the faith of Islam, that in the auspicious reign of this DESTROYER OF INFIDELITY AND TURBULENCE, such a wonderful and seemingly impossible work was successfully accomplished. On seeing this instance of strength of the Emperor's faith and the grandeur of his devotion to God, the proud Rajas were stifled and in amazement they stood like images facing the wall. THE IDOLS, LARGE AND SMALL< SET WITH COSTLY JEWELS WHIC HAD BEEN SET UP IN THE TEMPLE WERE BROUGHT TO AGRA< AND BURIED UNDER THE STEPS OF THE MOSQUE OF BEGUM SAHIB, IN ORDER TO BE CONTINUALLY TRODDEN UPON. The name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad. ..."

Khandela (Rajasthan)

" ... Darab Khan who had been sent with a strong force to punish the Rajputs of Khandela and TO DEMOLISH THE GREAT TEMPLE OF THE PLACE, attacked on March 8th/Safar 5th, and slew the three hundred and odd men who made a bold defence, not one of them escaping alive. THE TEMPLES OF KHANDELA AND SANULA AND ALL OTHER TEMPLES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WERE DEMOLISHED ..."

Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

" ... On 24th Rabi S. (Sunday, May 25th), Khan Jahan Bahadur came from Jodhpur, AFTER DEMOLISHING THE TEMPLES and bringing with himself some cart-loads of idols, and had audience of the Emperor, who higly praised him and ordered that the idols, which were mostly jewelled, golden, silver, bronze, copper, or stone, should be cast in the yard (jilaukhanah) of the Court AND UNDER THE STEPS OF THE JAMA MOSQUE, TO BE TRODDEN UPON..."

Udaipur (Rajasthan)

" ... Ruhullah Khan and Ekkataz Khan WENT TO DEMOLISH THE GREAT TEMPLE in front of the Rana's palace, which was one of the rarest buildings of the age and the chief cause of the destruction of the life and property of the despised worshippers. Twenty 'machator' Rajputs who were sitting in the Temple vowed to give up their lives; first one of them came out to fight, killed some and was them himself slain, then came out another and so on, until every one of the twenty perished, after killing a large number of the imperialists including the trusted slave Ikhlas. The Temple was found empty. THE HEWERS BROKE THE IMAGES. ..."

" ...On Saturday, the 24th January, 1680 (2nd Muharram), the Emperor went to view lake Udaisagar, constructed by the Rana, AND ORDERED ALL THE THREE TEMPLES ON ITS BANKS TO BE DEMOLISHED. ..."

" ...On the 29th January/7th Muharram, Hasan Ali Khan brought to the Emperor twenty camel-loads of tents and other things captured from the Rana's Palace and REPORTED THAT ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-TWO OTHER TEMPLES IN THE ENVIRONS OF UDAIPUR HAD BEEN DESTROYED. The Khan received the title of Bahadur Alamgirshahi..."

Amber (Rajasthan)

"... Abu Turab, who had been SENT TO DEMOLISH THE TEMPLES of AMBER, returned to the Court on Tuesday August 10th (Rajab 24th), and reported that HE HAD PULLED DOWN SIXTY-SIX TEMPLES. ..."

Bijapur (Karnataka)

" ... Hamiduddin Khan Bahadur WHO HAD GONE TO DEMOLISH A TEMPLE AND BUILD A MOSQUE (IN ITS PLACE) in Bijapur, having excellently carried his orders, came to court and gained praise and the post of darogha of gusulkhanah, which brought him near the Emperor's person..."

General Text

"...LARGE NUMBERS OF PLACES OF WORSHIP OF THE INFIDELS AND GREAT TEMPLES OF THESE WICKED PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THROWN DOWN AND DESOLATED. Men who can see only the outside of things are filled with wonder at the successful accomplishment of such a seemingly difficult task. AND ON THE SITES OF THE TEMPLES LOFTY MOSQUES HAVE BEEN BUILT..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. "Akhbarat"

These were reports from different provinces compiled in the reign of Aurangzeb.

Excerpts:

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707)

Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)

" ... The emporer learning that in the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura there was a stone railing presented by Dara Shikoh, remarked, 'In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple, and this Dara Shikoh had restored a railing in a temple. This fact is not creditable to the Muhammadans. REMOVE THE RAILING.' By his order Abdun Nabi Khan (the faujdar of Mathura) REMOVED IT..."

Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh)

" ... News came from Malwa that Wazir Khan had sent Gada Beg, a slave, with 400 troopers, TO DESTROY ALL TEMPLES AROUND UJJAIN... A Rawat of the place resisted and slew Gada Beg with 121 of his men..."

Aurangabad (Maharashtra)

"...... The Emperor learnt from a secret news writer of Delhi that in Jaisinghpura Bairagis used to worship idols, and that the Censor on hearing of it had gone there, arrested Sri Krishna Bairagis and taken him with 15 idols away to his house; then the Rajputs had assembled, flocked to the Censor's house, wounded three footmen of the Censor and tried to seize the Censor himself; so that the latter set the Bairagis free and sent the copper idols to the local subahdar ..."

Pandharpur (Maharashtra)

"... The Emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men .... ORDERED THEM TO DEMOLISH THE TEMPLE OF PANDHARPUR, and to take the butchers of the camp there AND SLAUGHTER COWS IN THE TEMPLE ... It was done..."

On Way to the Deccan

" ... When the war with the Rajputs was over, Aurangzeb decided to leave for the Deccan. His march seems to have been marked with A DESTRUCTION TO MANY TEMPLES on the way. On May 21, 1681, the superintendent of the labourers WAS ORDERED TO DESTROY ALL THE TEMPLES on the route..."

Lakheri ( ? - means the place is not traceable today )

" ... On 27 Sept., 1681, the emperor issued orders FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES at Lakheri..."

Rasulpur( ? )

"... About this time, April 14, 1692, orders were issued to the provincial governor and the district faujdar TO DEMOLISH THE TEMPLES at Rasulpur..."

Sheogaon ( ? )

" ... Sankar, a messenger, was sent TO DEMOLISH A TEMPLE near Sheogaon.."

Ajmer (Rajasthan)

"... Bijai Singh and several other Hindus were reported to be carrying on public worship of idols in a temple in the neighborhood of Ajmer. On 23 June, 1694, THE GOVERNER OF AJMER WAS ORDERED TO DESTROY THE TEMPLE and stop the public adoration of idol worship there..."

Wakenkhera ( ? )

" ... The TEMPLE OF WAKENKHERA IN THE FORT WAS DEMOLISHED ON 2 MARCH, 1705. ..."

Bhagwant Garh (Rajasthan)

"... The newswriter of Ranthambore REPORTED THE DESTRUCTION OF A TEMPLE IN PARGANAH BHAGWANT GARH. Gaj Singh Gor had repaired the temple and made some additions thereto..."

Malpura (Rajasthan)

" ... Royal orders FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES IN MALPURA TODA were received and the officers were assigned for this work..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. "Fathiyya-i-'Ibriyya"

This is a diary of Mir Jumla's campaigns in Kuch Bihar and Assam. "By looting," writes Jadunath Sarkar, "the temples of the South and hunting out buried treasures, Mir Jumla amassed a vast fortune. The huge Hindu idols of copper were brought away in large numbers to be melted and cast into cannon. ..."

Excerpts:

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)

Koch Bihar (Bengal)

" ... Mir Jumla made his way into Kuch Bihar by an obscure and neglected highway. .... In six days the Mughal Army reached the capital (19th December) which had been deserted by the Rajah and his people in terror. The name of the town was changed to Alamgirnagar; the muslim call to prayer, so long forbidden in the city, was chanted from the lofty roof of the palace, and a mosque was built by DEMOLISHING THE PRINCIPLE TEMPLE..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. "Kalimat-i-Tayyibat" by 'Inayatullah
This is a collection of letters and orders of Aurangzeb compiled by 'Inayatullah in AD 1719 and covers the years 1699-1704 of Aurangzeb's reign.

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)

Somnath (Gujarat)

"... The TEMPLE OF SOMNATH WAS DEMOLISHED early in my reign and idol worship (there) put down. It is not known what the state of things there is at present. If the idolators have again taken to the worship of images at the place, THEN DESTROY THE TEMPLE IN SUCH A WAY THAT NO TRACE OF THE BUILDING MAY BE LEFT, and also expel them (the worshippers) from the place. ..."

Satara (Maharashtra)

"... The village of Sattara near Aurangabad was my hunting ground. Here on the top of the hill, STOOD A TEMPLE WITH AN IMAGE OF KHANDE RAI. BY GOD'S GRACE I DEMOLISHED IT, AND FORBADE THE TEMPLE DANCERS (muralis) to ply their shameful profession..."

General Observation "... THE DEMOLITION OF A TEMPLE IS POSSIBLE AT ANY TIME, as it cannot walk away from its place. ..."

Sirhind (Punjab)

"... In a small village in the sarkar of Sirhind, A SIKH TEMPLE WAS DEMOLISHED AND CONVERTED INTO A MOSQUE. An imam was appointed who was subsequently killed. ..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. "Ganj-i-Arshadi"

It is a contemporary account of the destruction of Hindu temples at Varanasi in the reign of Aurangzeb.

Excerpts:

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)

Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)

"... The infidels demolished a mosque that was under construction and wounded the artisans. When the news reached Shah Yasin, he came to Banaras from Mandyawa and collecting the Muslim weavers, DEMOLISHED THE BIG TEMPLE. A Sayyid who was an artisan by profession agreed with one Abdul Rasul to build a mosque at Banaras and accordingly the foundation was laid. Near the place there was a temple and many houses belonging to it were in the occupation of the Rajputs. The infidels decided that the construction of a mosque in the locality was not proper and that it should be razed to the ground. At night the walls of the mosque were found demolished. next day the wall was rebuilt but it was again destroyed. This happened three or four times. At last the Sayyid his himself in the corner. With the advent of night the infidels came to achieve their nefarious purpose. When Abdul Rasul gave the alarm, the infidels began to fight and the Sayyid was wounded by the Rajputs. In the meantime, the Musalman residents of the neighborhood arrived at the spot and the infidels took to their heels. The wounded muslims were taken to Shah Yasin who determined to vindicate the cause of Islam. When he came to the mosque, people collected from the neighborhood. the civil officers were outwardly inclined to side with the saint, but in reality they were afraid of the Royal displeasure on the account of the Raja, who was a courtier of the Emperor and had built the temple (near which the mosque was under construction). Shah Yasin, however, took up the sword and started for Jihad. The civil officers sent him a message that such a grave step should not be taken without the Emperor's permission. Shah Yasin, paying no heed, sallied forth till he reached Bazar Chau Khamba through a fusillade of stones ...... THE DOORS (OF TEMPLES) WERE FORCED OPEN AND THE IDOLS THROWN DOWN. THE WEAVERS AND OTHER MUSALMANS DEMOLISHED ABOUT 500 TEMPLES. They desired to destroy the temple of Beni Madho, but as lanes were barricaded, they desisted from going further...."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. "Kalimat-i-Aurangzeb" by 'Inayatullah

This is another compilation of letters and orders by 'Inayatu'llah covering the years 1703-06 of Aurangzeb's reign.

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707) Maharashtra

"...The houses of this country (Maharashtra) are exceedingly strong and built solely of stone and iron. The hatchet-men of the Govt. in the course of my marching do not get sufficient strength and power (i.e. time) TO DESTROY AND RAZE THE TEMPLES OF THE INFIDELS that meet the eye on the way. You should appoint an orthodox inspector (darogha) who may afterwards DESTROY THEM AT LEISURE AND DIG UP THEIR FOUNDATIONS..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. "Muraq'at-i-Abu'I Hasan" by Maulana Abu'l Hasan

This is a collection of records and documents compiled by (the above named author) one of Aurangzeb's officers in Bengal and Orissa during AD 1655-67.

Excerpts:

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)

Bengal and Orissa

"...Order issued on all faujdars of thanas, civil officers (mutasaddis), agents of jagirdars, kroris, and amlas from Katak to Medinipur on the frontier of Orissa :- The imperial paymaster Asad Khan has sent a letter written by order of the Emperor, to say, that the Emperor learning from the newsletters of the province of Orissa that at the village of Tilkuti in Medinipur a temple has been (newly) built, HAS ISSUED HIS AUGUST MANDATE FOR ITS DESTRUCTION, and THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL TEMPLES BUILT ANYWHERE IN THIS PROVINCE BY THE WORTHLESS INFIDELS. Therefore, you are commanded with extreme urgency that immediately on the receipt of this letter YOU SHOULD DESTROY THE ABOVE MENTIONED TEMPLES. EVERY IDOL-HOUSE BUILT DURING THE LAST 10 or 12 YEARS, WHETHER WITH BRICK OR CLAY, SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED WITHOUT DELAY. ALSO, DO NOT ALLOW THE CRUSHED HINDUS AND DESPICABLE INFIDELS TO REPAIR THEIR OLD TEMPLES. REPORTS OF THE DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE COURT UNDER THE SEAL OF THE QAZIS and attested by PIOUS SHAIKHS..."

10. "Futuhat-i-Alamgiri" by Ishwardas Nagar

The author was a Brahman from Gujarat, born around AD 1654. Till the age of thirty he was in the service of the Chief Qazi of the empire under Aurangzeb. Later on, he took up a post under Shujat Khan, the governor of Gujarat, who appointed him Amin in the pargana of Jodhpur. His history covers almost half a century of Aurangzeb's reign, from 1657 to 1700. There is nothing in his style which may mark him out as a Hindu.

Excerpts:

Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)

Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)

" ... When the imperial army was encamping at Mathura, a holy city of the Hindus, the state of affairs with regard to temples of Mathura was brought to the notice of His Majesty. Thus, HE ORDERED THE FAUJDAR OF THE CITY, ABDUL NABI KHAN, TO RAZE TO THE GROUND EVERY TEMPLE AND TO CONSTRUCT BIG MOSQUES (over their demolished sites)..."

Udaipur (Rajasthan)

"... The Emperor, within a short time, reached Udaipur AND DESTROYED THE GATE OF DEHBARI, THE PALACES OF RANA AND THE TEMPLES OF UDAIPUR. Apart from it, the trees of his gardens were also destroyed..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Ahmad, Qeyamuddin (ed.), "Patna through the Ages", New Delhi, 1988.
"Alberuni's India", translated by E.C. Sachau, New Delhi Reprint, 1983.
Attar, Shykh Faridu'd-Din, "Tadhkirat al-Awliya", translated into Urdu by Maulana Z.A. Usmani.
Bloch J., "Indian Studies", London, 1931.
Chuvin, Pierre, "A Chronicle of the Last Pagans ", Harvard, 1990.
Durrant, Will, "The Story of Civilization", New York, 1972.
Elliot and Dowson, "History of India as told by its own Historians", 8 volumes, Allahbad Reprint, 1964.
"First Encyclopedia of Islam"
"Futuhat-i-Alamgiri" by Ishwardas Nagar, trans. into English by Tasneem Ahmad, Delhi, 1978.
Growse, F.S. "Mathura: A District Memoir", Reprint, Ahmedabad, 1978.
Hosain, Saiyid Safdar, " The Early History of Islam," Vol. I, Delhi Reprint, 1985.
"Jami Tirmizi," Arabic text with Urdu translation by Badi'al-Zaman, Vol. I, New Delhi, 1983.
"Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan" of Al-Biladhuri, translated into English by F.C. Murgotte, New York, 1924.
"Maasir-i-Alamgiri" of Saqi Must'ad Khan, translated into English and annotated by Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947.
"Makke Madine di Goshati", edited by Dr. Kulwant Singh, Patiala, 1988.
"The Rehala of Ibn Battuta," translated into English by Mahdi Hussain, Baroda, 1976.
Sarkar, Jadunath, "History of Aurangzeb," 3 Volumes, Calcutta, 1972, 73.

Was The Mughal Rule All That Bad? - acharya - 08-07-2006

These are Paki questions. THis is shoot and scoot act.

The guy is nowhere to be seen and not contributing. Keep it for one day and kill the thread.

No need to give elaborate answers as the person may not even know what Buddism and Hinduism is.