Aurangzeb Road in the heart of Delhi is now renamed as Abdul Kalam Road. It’s a long awaited demand fulfilled lately. It’s an appreciable step by NDMC. Opposing this right step few intellects started weeping crocodile tears.
Read few arguments given in support of Aurangzeb.
This will spoil secular image of our country.
If I am not wrong Dara Shikoh was the only true secular member among Mughal dynasty. On one hand he was inspired from Sufi scholars on another hand he translated Vedanta and Upanishads into Persian language. Dara was captured and brutally killed by Aurangzeb for throne. Aurangzeb considered the sympathy of Dara towards Hindus as deceitfulness and against Islam. Thus, the voice of secularism was buried forever by the hands of Alamgir. How can anyone claim a person as secular who was involved in destruction of temples, imposing Jaziya (Religious Tax), opposing religious beliefs and practices of non-Muslims, promoting conversion of Hindus to Islam? How can we consider a road named after a radical person as secular? So, it’s again a hoax to say that our country image will be spoiled by renaming a road.
Aurangzeb destroyed Vishvanath Ji temple as a Hindu Rani was abducted and molested by Hindu priests of the temple.
The story regarding demolition of Vishvanath temple is promoted by B.N.Pande. He quotes that while Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his company requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishvanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed. Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made a journey on the Palkis. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishvanath temple to pay their homage. After offering Puja all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple premises but the Rani was to be found nowhere. When Aurangzeb came to know of it, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately, they found that the statue of Ganesh which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror, they found the missing Rani dishonored and crying, deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Jagannath’s seat. The Rajas expressed their vociferous protests. As the crime was heinous, the Rajas demanded exemplary action. Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred temple have been spoiled, Lord Vishvanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant be arrested and punished.”
The story is very bizarre, to say the least. First of all Aurangzeb never visited Bengal. Some of his generals were sent on expeditions to Bengal, but Aurangzeb never went himself. There are fairly complete chronicles of his doings, day by day; could B.N. Pande or any of his quoters give the date or even the year of this remarkable episode?
Neither was Aurangzeb known to accompany himself with Hindu courtiers. And did these Rajas take their wives along on military expeditions? Or was it some holiday or picnic? How could the Mahant kidnap a Rani who was there in the company of other Ranis, courtiers and bodyguards? Why did the “Rajas” wait for Aurangzeb to take “exemplary action”? Did they fear his anger if they punished the priests or destroyed the temple themselves? And since when is demolition the approved method of purifying a regarded temple, an eventuality for which the Shastras have laid down due ritual procedures? One question which we can readily answer is where did B.N. Pande get this story from? He himself writes: “Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, in his famous book, The Feathers and the Stones, has narrated this fact based on documentary evidence. So, we have to go one more step back in time to find this intriguing “documentary evidence”. Let us turn to this book, now hard to find, to see what the documentary evidence is on which this whole wave of pro-Aurangzeb rumors is based, but which no one has cared to reproduce or even just specify. This is what Gandhian Congress leader Pattabhi Sitaramayya wrote in his prison diary: “This story of the Benares Musjid was given in a rare manuscript in Lucknow which was in the possession of a respected Mulla who had read it in the manuscript and who though he promised to look it up and give the Manuscript to a friend, to whom he had narrated the story, died without fulfilling his promise. The story is little known and the prejudice, we are told, against Aurangzeb persists.”
So now, we finally know where the story comes from: an unnamed mullah friend of an unnamed acquaintance of Sitaram ayya’s knew of a manuscript, the details of which he took with him in his grave. This is the “document” on which secularist journalists and historians base their “evidence” of Aurangzeb’s fair and secularist disposition, overruling the evidence of archaeology and the cold print of the Maasiri Alamgiri, to “explode the myth” of Islamic iconoclasm spread by the “chauvinist” Hindutva propagandists. Now you just try to imagine what the secularists and their mouthpieces in Western academy would say if Hindus offered evidence of this quality.
Aurangzeb banned alcohol, music to remove evil of prostitution from society. Thus he was a social reformer
Apart from music Aurangzeb became hostile towards arts. He considered promotion of art equivalent to infidelity. In wave of proving himself a true Muslim he asked to demolish idols of two elephants erected in front of gates. He even asked to destroy the carved railing, which Prince Dara Shikoh had presented to Keshava Rai temple at Mathura.
Aurangzeb bans on music and art brought no difference in moral character of the society. The whole class of bureaucrats and higher officials were addicted to alcohol and prostitutes since generations of Mughal rule, they continued to fulfill their desires behind his back. They were aware that Aurangzeb was a fanatic not reformer.
Britishers manipulated history of this country in post 1857 era. They deliberately defamed Aurangzeb by writing wrong and spurious facts against him. They removed all references of donations to famous temples to prove him religious fanatic.
I laughed many a times reading this argument. That’s why I named this article as Intellectual terrorism. The self-acclaimed scholars issuing this statement want to say that only History authored by any Muslim scholar is true History while others are always bound to be wrong. The criteria of True and False history are being Muslim and non-Muslim. I shall like to quote the most regarded among scholars of medieval history Sir Eliot and Dawson. They write in “History of India as told by its own historians” that the history recorded by Muslim authors was exaggerated and factually wrong. The Muslim authors were paid workers of Mughals. They hide the bitter truth and recorded baseless statements to please their rulers. Even after this technical failure we found many evidences from the life of Aurangzeb ordering demolition of Hindu temples and imposing of Jaziya.
Masir-i-Alamgiri — a history of the reign of Aurangzeb — by Saqi Mustad Khan is work authored by Muslim author. Khan’s narration was based on orders passed by Aurangzeb and material available in state archives in 1710. Akhbarats is another collection of orders passed by Aurangzeb. In addition, there are other accounts like Mirat-i-Alam and Alamgir-Nama written by persons employed by Aurangzeb. These works give clear evidences of orders from Aurangzeb to demolish the Kashi Vishvanath of Banaras, Keshava dev temple at Mathura, Somnath temple at Gujarat, different temples of Rajputana in Udaipur, Mewar, Chittor, Amber, Jagannath Temple in Orissa, Bindu-Madhav temple in Banaras and many more. Apart from it orders for non-celebration of Hindu festivals like Holi and Diwali, orders to collect religious tax of Jaziya, orders to give incentive in form of job and money to convert Hindus were few achievements of Aurangzeb’s rule. Even after providing such evidences if some want to consider that Aurangzeb was not tyrant than it’s nothing more than stubbornness. A new feather was added to the wading glory of Aurangzeb by saying that he used to donate regular donations to Hindu temples. There is a famous proverb to refute this claim, “He can never be God’s martyr who is devil’s martyr.”
Aurangzeb was a true and pious Muslim. He copied the Holy Quran himself and stitched Muslim caps.
Aurangzeb was neither the eldest, nor the favorite son of his father Shah Jahan. To ascend the throne, he killed his two brothers, dispatched his father to jail, and subsequently murdered him by sending him poisoned massage oil. He later imprisoned his son (in his will, he admonished: “Never trust your sons”). His father the ex-emperor of India Shahjahan was denied even a glass of water in captivity. He cursed Aurangzeb and considered Hindus as superior in conduct citing example of Hindus feeding even their dead ancestors in the Holy month of Shraddha. Now how many readers will like to compare stitching of skull caps, writing of Quran with killing of old father and brothers by deceit? The natural answer will prove that Aurangzeb was tyrant. He did not spare his own family men. What would be his attitude for Hindus of his kingdom?