hinduwoman

Hindu humanist, orginally animals were sacrificed in the yagnas. It was only later that the practice ceased, so Sita could have meant a rela sacrifice.

hinduwoman

Yes, Susheel, everything that muslim rulers did against hindus were politcal and economic.

I suppose when they buried idols under the steps of mosques so that faithful would step on them, everytime a muslim did so he paid a fee to the govt.

Aurangazeb destroyed temples but not mosques --- ratioanle? Or is it going to be the old one that temples were hotbeds of conspiracy?

I suppose he banned musicians and painters from his court to save the exchequer money.

Susheel

And these population groups happen to be Hindu. I did not say anywhere that all Hindus ate beef in these states. I said certain groups (and they do form a significant number) did and they happen to be Hindus (atleast regarded as Hindus).
I am not familiar with Mr. Jha's argument, if someone could give me a reference I would be obliged. But I guess going to mythology for evidence is a rather stupid move. Anyhow I think it would make a rather interesting read.
I don't know, but for me being a leftist has meant breaking down the fences of preconceived notions and working with the facts that I see. And nothing (absotlutely nothing) suggests that the Hindu religion, or any organised religion for that matter, has resulted in 'the greater good'.
The primary reason for any kind of oppression of one group over another is usually political or economic. Of course Aurangzeb had also the added agenda of conversion as instructed to him by the Holy Koran. However, I do not think he woke up everymorning and went out hunting Hindus to make Human Shishkabobs a 'la Count Vlad.

lpetrich

I don't think that we ought to try to draw a sharp line between religion and politics here; arguing over whether Aurangzeb had acted on religious or political reasons are, IMO, splitting hairs. Such blurring is all too common in the present-day Middle East, sad to say.

But it's clear that someone who targets Hindu temples for destruction and banishes musicians and painters is a rather Talibanesque sort of leader. If his actions were purely political instead of religious, he would have tried to co-opt the local Hindu religious leaders and tried to seem like a friend of Hinduism.

Susheel

I am not saying that Aurangazeb was not a fundamentalist. He was. But he is not the evil sadist who loved to inflict pain and suffering on Hindus as portrayed in the Hindu dominant popular media. He was a cultured man, learned and also a versatile musician (I can't remember if it was the sitar or veena, i'll check and let you know). My problem is with the unidimensional portrayal of this man which foregrounds his negative qualities and then use that to judge all Muslims.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Susheel ]</p>

hinduwoman

Unidimensional? Ok show me where he displayed any hint of generosity towards other faiths?

Hindus in adminstration? To cling on to our secular illusions, let us completely ignore that he decreed that all hindu head clerks be dismissed and replaced with muslims; unfortunately there were not enough qualified muslims so he had to keep the hindus. Same in other spheres.
Hindu merchants paid 5% tax, muslims none (will look up the specific case)
Reimposition of Jiziya and expressing deep satisfaction when many hindus converted to Islam.

It is secularist lies like this that spawn even greater hatred towards muslims.

BTw, hindus adore Akbar; his career gives hope that even fanatic muslims can be redeemed.

roshan

dont forget mass destruction of temples and the banning of hindu festivals.

whethere he was a cultured man doesnt matter - a fanatical butcher is a fanatical butcher whether he plays the sitar or not.

as for akbar - he did have his own atrocities - the massacre of 30,000 civilians at chittod, and he erected a victory tower of the heads of the killed and captured soldiers of hemus army after the second battle of panipat. he was secular, but he can harldy be considered as a paragon of virtue.

Virtual Kshatriya

There has been a general attempt to attribute the causes of Anti-Hinduism to socio-economic factors. Marxist historians have often indulged in this game with academic objectivity often becoming the causalty. For example, a Romila Thapar or a Bipin Chandra or a Jha may show you two cases of Hindu kings destroying Hindu temples and thus they 'prove' that all temple descreation and slaughters of Hindus carried out by Islamic rulers as just the result of socio-economic factors. This line of apology would then become part of apologist literature of ISlamic fundamenatlists.
Now an examination of their claims of even a few Hindu kings having destroyed Hindu temples have been at it sbest speculative. One often cited example is that of King Harsha of Kashmir. Romila Thapar never reveals the fact that the same source from which she culls out this example also tells that the king did it under the influence of Turks. She has been exposed many times for misquoting and quoting out of context.
Now take the example of Aurangazeb. It was not just Marattas but also Assamese, Chandals of Bundelkhand and importantly Sikhs had rebelled against Aurangazeb. What prompted this rebellion. All these people's histories talk about religious persecution as the reason. But simultaneously there exist a parallel aspect. Aurangazeb's own brother Dara Shikoh was a great philosopher and he too was charged with being an infidel and killed. (of course it also was power struggle.)
In Punjab Sufi saints too were killed and persecuted by Aurangazeb.
Now when Marxist historians rationalise Aurangazeb's behaviour they diminish the multi-dimensional spiritual heritage of Indian Islam. You can glorify Aurangazeb also you can glorify Adolf Hitler - a great fan of Wagner see man of art and taste, a vegetarian, and six million Jews were just killed not because they were Jews but because of the historical forces.
It must be surpsrising to many that the much despised RSS has brought out in its Bharatha Bharathi titles for children a book on Asfaqulla Khan. Their Swadeshi calendar shows prominently Abdul Kalam and Their daily prayer Ekatmata Stotra mentions the name of Kabir and Ibrahim Ras Khan.
The question is we have Muslims like Ustad Bismillah Khan who love Kasi 'because Mandir is here and Ganga Ma is here'; we have Muslims like Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam who loves and values India more than anything else;we have Muslims like Dr. Rahi Mazoom Raza whose understanding of our culture is something every Indian should learn and imbibe. They have been role models for all Indians not just Muslims.
Yet by constantly identifying them with Aurangazeb and Gaznavi , by inventing apologetics for their inhumanity we are making Muslims fall in tune with fundamentalists. The reactions have been stereotyping on both sides and the net result is carnage and terrorism. Remember many leftist magazines in India even justified Osama Bin Laden (a natural and historical reaction in the garb of religious extremism but actual motivating factors were those of class struggle against International imperialism - see KalaChuvadu Dec-2001) .