Hindu Holocaust: A Thorn by any Other Name...

Sandeep , sandeep, Sandeep.....
Could not agree with you more ...
But you could get a few brickbats for this.

"The Holocaust... is the name applied to the genocide of minority groups of Europe and North Africa during World War II by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. [.] "

THe use of the word 'minority" is going to be used to actually refute the whole thing... since Hindus were not in a minority...... And since Muslims are in a minority today.. they are going to say that Gujarat riots and Mumbai riots were Holocaust I/II.

But anyway.. truth is millions of hindus were killed, maimed and tortured..and worse their culture was destroyed. This was a shame on the history of India. And I cannot call it my heritage.. It is just a shameful part of my country's history. Right from Mughal rule to till the British rule ended.. it has been a shameful 1000 years.
And it is a thorn in my flesh. I will live with it, but do not ask me to accept it wholeheartedly. It is a shame just that and nothing else.

There's little difference between Hitler and Aurangzeb.

Sources please to substantiate the argument.

Cultural: Those that weren't killed were spared because they agreed to convert to Islam. This is cultural genocide.

Have you heard of jaziya? It was one of the main sources of income for the state during Aurangzeb's time. He had more to gain by levying taxes on Hindus than by converting them or killing them- simple economics.

Read Irfan Habib for a fresh perspective on Aurangzeb's Deccan Policy and his Hindu Policy

Deepti:

Read Irfan habib? Naah he is a Muslim - so is wicked and needs to be brought into light of moderation and knowledge.. for fresh perspective - please read Billy Graham on George Bush's and Evangelists' Mid East policy and Muslim policy.

Thank you very much.

Desh
Drishtikone.com

And Deepti:

As for the "reality" of Aurangzeb and his intentions, please read Sikh history.. and why Guru Gobind Singh chose to not go along with his "guru ka bhana" while Guru Tegh Bahadur was martyred doing it? What irked them? Remember anything? Maybe Jaziya was it... before Guru Gobind Singh.. there was no such word called "Sikh" designating a group of people.. they were for matter of semantics - Hindus!

For starters - here is a little something on the Brotherly love and "economic" hardships that Guru Gobind Singh encountered in his life from the "Hindu Policy" of Aurangzeb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Gobind_Singh

What did Dara Shikoh do that irked Aurangzeb so much? Did he promise to lower the Jaziya rates?

There are times, Deepti, when you can make intelligent arguments in history.. and then there are times when you simply insult people's intelligence! Sometimes we should just let the devils get their due and not argue from their end.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Maybe we should return the compliments to the turks and the sand eating Arabs. Why have we let them get away with this atrocity for so long? Where are the oh so pure liberals? Why are they not condemning this historic atrocities in the strongest terms?

Richard H. Davis has recently shown, early medieval Indian history abounds in instances of temple desecration that occurred amidst inter-dynastic conflicts. In 642 A.D., according to local tradition, the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I looted the image of Ganesha from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi. Fifty years later armies of those same Chalukyas invaded north India and brou ght back to the Deccan what appear to be images of Ganga and Yamuna, looted from defeated powers there. In the eighth century Bengali troops sought revenge on king Lalitaditya by destroying what they thought was the image of Vishnu Vaikuntha, the state-d eity of Lalitaditya's kingdom in Kashmir.

In the early ninth century, the Rashtrakuta king Govinda III invaded and occupied Kanchipuram, which so intimidated the king of Sri Lanka that he sent Govinda several (probably Buddhist) images that had represented the Sinhala state, and which the Rashtr akuta king then installed in a Saiva temple in his capital. About the same time, the Pandyan king Srimara Srivallabha also invaded Sri Lanka and took back to his capital a golden Buddha image that had been installed in the kingdom's Jewel Palace. In the early tenth century, the Pratihara king Herambapala seized a solid gold image of Vishnu Vaikuntha when he defeated the Sahi king of Kangra. By the mid-tenth century, the same image was seized from the Pratiharas by the Candella king Yasovarman and instal led in the Lakshmana temple of Khajuraho.

In the early eleventh century, the Chola king Rajendra I furnished his capital with images he had seized from several prominent neighbouring kings: Durga and Ganesha images from the Chalukyas; Bhairava, Bhairavi, and Kali images from the Kalingas of Oris sa; a Nandi image from the Eastern Chalukyas; and a bronze Siva image from the Palas of Bengal ). In the mid-eleventh century, the Chola king Rajadhiraja defeated the Chalukyas and plundered Kalyani, taking a large black stone door guardian to his capital in Thanjavur, where it was displayed to his subjects as a trophy of war . In the late eleventh century, the Kashmiri king Harsha even raised the plundering of temples to an institutionalised activity; and in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century, while Turkish rulers were establishing themselves in north India, kings of the Paramara dynasty attacked and plundered Jain temples in Gujarat.

This pattern continued after the Turkish conquest of India. In the 1460s, Kapilendra, the founder of the Suryavamshi Gajapati dynasty in Orissa, sacked both Saiva and Vaishnava temples in the Cauvery delta in the course of wars of conquest in the Tamil c ountry. Somewhat later, in 1514, Krishnadevaraya looted an image of Balakrishna from Udayagiri, which he had defeated and annexed to his growing Vijayanagara state. Six years later he acquired control over Pandharpur, where he seems to have looted the Vittala image and carried it back to Vijayanagara, with the apparent purpose of ritually incorporating this area into his kingdom.

Although the dominant pattern here was one of looting royal temples and carrying off images of state-deities, we also hear of Hindu kings engaging in the destruction of the royal temples of their political adversaries. In the early tenth century, the Ras htrakuta monarch Indra III not only destroyed the temple of Kalapriya (at Kalpa near the Yamuna River), patronised by the Rashtrakutas' deadly enemies, the Pratiharas, but also took special delight in recording the fact.

pankaj, where is the evidence for all u said. where are the links? it's amazing when liberals use the "You too" argument when someone challenges them. but cannot provide a single shred of hard evidence to back their own dubious claims besides sloganeering and frothing at the mouth.

Desh, nice to see you back after so long- Its very unlike you to brush away a reliable source because the author happens to be (gasp)a 'muslim' historian who enjoys high esteem amongst his peers all over India.

The Sikh or 'Hindu' (if you must insist on calling it that) freedom movement was a movement against the decaying and degenerating Mughal dynasty and any one who fought for independence be it Hindu or Muslim would have met the same fate.

Dara was close to his father, see any of the miniature paintings of that time where Dara was high up near the throne next to his father whereas Aurangzeb was made to stand with the courters. Jealousy was one reason, the thirst for power another and add to that his intense hatred against Dara's liberal thinking.

The main reason for killing Dara was to ascend the throne, the rest of the causes were mere 'excuses' or secondary causes.

Apollo, Source for Pankaj's argument can be found in Richard M Eaton's book-: Temple Destruction and Muslim States in Medieval India

The notion of the Muslim Sultan as temple-breaker, Eaton says, derives essentially from history texts written by British colonial administrators, who, in turn, drew upon Persian chronicles by Muslim historians attached to the courts of various Indian Muslim rulers. Eaton argues that British colonial historians were at pains to project the image of Muslim rulers as wholly oppressive and anti-Hindu, in order to present British rule as enlightened and civilized and thereby enlist Hindu support. For this they carefully selected from the earlier Persian chronicles those reports that glorified various Muslim Sultans as destroyers of temples and presented these as proof that Hindus and Muslims could not possibly live peacefully with each other without the presence of the British to rule over them to prevent them from massacring each other. Although some of these reports quoted in British texts were true, many others were simply the figment of the imagination of court chroniclers anxious to present their royal patrons as great champions of Islamic orthodoxy even if in actual fact these rulers were lax Muslims.

Dealing with actual instances of temple-breaking by Muslim rulers, Eaton appeals for a more nuanced approach, arguing that in most cases these occurred not simply or mainly because of religious zeal. Thus, the raids on temples by the eleventh century Mahmud Ghaznavi must be seen as motivated, at least in part, by the desire for loot, since the temples he destroyed were richly endowed with gold and jewels, which he used to finance his plundering activities against other Muslim rulers in Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere. Beginning in the early thirteenth century, the Delhi Sultans' policy of selective temple desecration aimed, not as in the earlier Ghaznavid period, to finance distant military operations on the Iranian plateau but to de-legitimize and extirpate defeated Indian ruling houses. The process of Indo-Muslim state building, Eaton says, entailed the sweeping away of all prior political authority in newly conquered territories. When such authority was vested in a ruler whose own legitimacy was associated with a royal temple, typically one that housed idol of ruling dynasty's state-deity, that temple was normally looted or destroyed or converted into a mosque, which succeeded in 'detaching the defeated raja from the most prominent manifestation of his former legitimacy'. Temples that were not so identified were normally left untouched. Hence, Eaton writes, it is wrong to explain this phenomenon by appealing to what he calls as an 'essentialized theology of iconoclasm felt to be intrinsic to Islam'.

Apologies for hitting publish before adding source.
Thanks Deepti for giving the source.From the same source:
Writing in 1931 on the pernicious influence that the colonial understanding of pre-modern Indian history had on subsequent generations, (the Historian) Mohamma d Habib remarked: "The peaceful Indian Mussalman, descended beyond doubt from Hindu ancestors, was dressed up in the garb of a foreign barbarian, as a breaker of temples, and an eater of beef, and declared to be a military colonist in the land where he had lived for about thirty or forty centuries.... The result of it is seen in the communalistic atmosphere of India today."
In thier eyes -the tailor Mohd Abbas or the car mechanic Irfan metamorphoses into Babar ki Aulad whose place is either Pakistan or kabristan.
Although rightwingers do not admit it ,by selective quoting of history and by constantly harping on real and imagined historical atrocities ,they seek to stir hatred against ordinary muslims.
How does this strengthen India they claim to care about so much about ?
Historian Irfan Habib is a leftist no doubt but his work has been widely recognised by his peers both in India and abroad.

No surprises here although Sandeep beware that claiming any suffering for Hindus at the hands of Muslims automatically opens you to charges of being a Hindu fanatic.
Irfan Habib's work has been contested repeatedly, Deepti, by scholars within and beyond Indian boundaries. His ideological biases (which we all have but attempt to keep in check during academic research) have often overtaken his intellectual integrity regarding issues of history. His role in repeatedly stopping ASI excavations at Fatehpur Sikri - a fort ascribed completely to Mughals is well known within JNU CHS. This fort btw has ample architectural and archeological evidence once again that it existed BEFORE Akbar who made changes to the fort but did not "construct" it as is told geneally. Arun Shourie's book on "Eminent Historians" presents a compelling case of just how historians like Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar (a self-avowed Buddhist scholar btw who speaks NONE of the languages needed for primary sources including Pali and Sanskrit) have distorted history for political reasons. The book also contains a detailed bibliography of primary sources from Muslims kings who destroyed temples and massacred nonMuslims during the Islamic "conquest" of India.
Diane L. Eck's book on Benaras: City of Light focusses only on Varanasi and details the spates of destruction and killings in just that city as well as the determination of Hindus to rebuild and resist.
Jaziya - btw, is one aspect of the Islamic state but conversion is a greater demand by the Koran. The downfall of Islamic states in ME and other places has been consistently linked to policies that preferred conversion over economic sense. Btw, other "people of the book" had special economic privileges, one reason there were significant Jewish communities in Iraq, Turkey etc. These privileges ensured they did not need to convert, unlike Hindus or other non-"Book" people. (Ref: differences in treatment and their theological underpinnings can be found in Peter Mansfield's History of the Middle East).
Finally, to describe the Sikh gurus as freedom fighters is disingenous at best, outright intellectually dishonest at worst. YES there was a political component to the gurus. But do remember that the predominant factor was religious.
You may want to do a bit of research at HOW the jaziya was paid. It wasn't something to be simply forked over to a greasy bureaucrat. The PROCESS of jaziya was to ensure regular and increasingly humiliation in the paying up process so that the "kaffirs" would be eventually broken into converting. Loads of material from Islamic scholars on this one....
Finally, the idea that "Hindu" kings ALSO destroyed temples is one that has been increasingly pushed post-1992 in a "you-too" blame game that is more closely linked to ideological agendas than real historical research. Its purpose is to discredit any legitimate grievance or criticism of Islamic rule in India or indeed any of the consequences of the same on the society today. Great politics, not very good history I am afraid...

Anamika, no one is denying that temples were not looted, destroyed, or forced conversions did not take place but to use past deeds as a reason to inflame present masses is unacceptable.

The crux of our debate is whether Aurangzeb was another Hitler which entails whether 'he' ie Aurangzeb systematically sent Hindus to their deaths, unwillingly to let even one reside in his kingdom which is why I brought up jaziya to show that 'he' was not idiotic enough to kill the every people his state stood to gain from.

The inferences to other Muslim rulers within and outside the parameters of Indian History are not the subject of this discussion and are clearly out of scope.

anamika claims the rightwing has no ideological agenda and is devoted to pure academic historical research.
yeah right.
No historian worth his salt claims medieval or even ancient India as some kind of utopia.
Does the hindu rightwing admit to the legitimate grievances of Indian minorities like muslims ?
The issue is not criticism of muslims rule in India but the selective use of history by them to stir hatred against fellow Indian citizens today .

Deepti,

You perhaps need to re-read my article. The essence, in sentence is this: there was a Hindu Holocaust/genocide perpetrated by Islamic rulers. But you raise some points that merit response.

>>...but to use past deeds as a reason to inflame present masses is unacceptable.

What sentence/para of my post gives the impression that I'm out to inflame the masses?

>>The crux of our debate is whether Aurangzeb was another Hitler which entails whether 'he' ie Aurangzeb systematically sent Hindus to their deaths...

This interpretation is completely out of context. For your benefit, here's the complete context:

Holocaust, annihilation, liquidation, extermination, jihad, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, final solution, genocide, crime against humanity...all facets of the same ideology of imperialism. There's little difference between Hitler and Aurangzeb.

When I say Hiter and Aurangzeb are similar, it means their mass murders owed directly to ideology: Nazism in the former case and Islam in the latter. Whereas you're confusing the trees for the forest. As I remarked in my post, even Jaizya is genocide, an economic genocide. You also shouldn't forget that a large part of Aurangzeb's regime was plagued by revolts, and he couldn't fully succeed in killing/converting all Hindus he could find. That also explains the Jaziya. However, that doesn't explain his temple-destroying spree, which is cultural genocide.

Pankaj,

If you're the same Pankaj who comments in my blog, I find it pointless arguing with you based on past experience with you. I'm assuming you're not. Hence this response.

Where has anamika mentioned that the "Hindu rightwing" (btw, the term "rightwing" is grossly incorrect when you refer to people supporting Hindu causes, but we'll let it remain for convenience) is devoted to pure academic historical research? In fact, almost ALL writings/research on Hindu history has come from OUTSIDE the political (BJP, RSS, et al) firmament. It is not correct to attribute to anamika what she hasn't said.

>>Does the hindu rightwing admit to the legitimate grievances of Indian minorities like muslims ?
They don't? Please cite some examples.

>>The issue is not criticism of muslims rule in India but the selective use of history by them to stir hatred against fellow Indian citizens today .
You make the same point that Deepti has done. But please show some evidence to support your "selective use of history" assertion.

Aurangzeb put the jaziya tax after 20 years of succession as pointed out by Satish Chandra. During the war of succession half the Rajput mansabdars were on his side and half were on Dara's side- ( Source-Athar Ali). When he won the battle he imprisoned Shah Jahan and became the emperor so this was against Muslim Law.

The Ulemas justified this action by saying that Shah Jahan had lost his senses so he became a puppet in their hands and he had to kill Dara as Dara was very popular in Delhi and people of Delhi could have revolved against Aurangzeb.

The Ulemas justified this action by saying that Dara was against Islam and he was an Hindu sympathiser.

This was a vital reason for him becoming a puppet in their hands.

As said before jaziya was imposed after 20 years when he needed money for battles in North-West frontier areas and he stopped the hindu festivals in the courts because of lack of money in the treasury and the Rajput revolts were not due to his religious policy (Satish Chandra) but due to their internal politics.

When Aurangzeb sided with one party the other revolted.

In the latter half of his reign his religious policy was motivated by political factors. When it suited he became friends of non muslims and when the need arose he punished the muslim rulers like those of Golkonda and Bijapur.

During his time there were more non muslim mansabdars than in other emperors time.

His Diwan Raghunath rAi was a Hindu and he gave te highest command to Jaswant Singh and Jai Singh which even Akbar didnt give.

Jagunath Sarkar was influenced by the British historians who were biased against Aurangzeb and SR Sharma also wrote his book on the bases of Jagunath Sarkar's theory.

Satish Chandra says that SR Sharma had written his book on the basis of Aurangzeb's religious policy in the first part of his reign when he was a puppet in the hands of the Ulemas.

Satish Chandra has researched the second half of his reign and says that Aurangzeb was not a fanatic in the second half of his reign.

When he broke the Maratha temple it was due to the fact that they were in the Maratha forts and they were broken during the war. And he never touched the ancient temples of Tirupati and many other South Indian temples.

Irfan Habib saw Goswami Records in Brindaban and he found that Aurangzeb ordered the Hakkim of Agra that he should collect one ruppee each from all the villiges and give them to the Goswamies because they look after the poor and the travellers.

phew.....that was a long comment. No, Sandeep I dont think you or anamika are out to inflame the masses or are right wing. I'm having a historical debate and enjoying it :)

And further on believe that selective interpretation of history is used in politics to give validity to certain viewpoints and garner votes.

How is taxation 'economic genocide'? The Indian subcontinent in circa 1700 was a conglomerate of local markets connected by poor traffic routes, and with a very large number of customs posts, or chowkis. Even a mid-range trade caravan could pay upto 60% of the value of the caravan as duties, yet, trade thrived, the economy was fully monetized. As is well-recorded, pre- the East India Company's reversal of economic conditions, the East in general ran an economic surplus vis-a-vis the West.

Coming to jaziya, the 'dhimmi tax', purely in the economic sense, and ignoring the social/religious discriminatory nature of the tax, as well as the constitutional humiliation of such as tax (a Judenhut), Indian segregation of occupations by caste and even religion often meant it was a rundimentary income tax or more precisely, a professional tax. Less charitably, it might be considered 'protection money' levied in order to practise one's livelihood. It served to limit competition and induce conversions, through economic means. Conversely, though, conversions were not exactly encouraged because they reduced state revenue from the jaziya tax - a classic example of supply-side economics.

It was fundamentally a fixed unit of revenue, and similar mechanisms existed elsevhere, such as the American voting tax applied to African Americans, the Danegeld,.

Muslims were expected to pay a similar tax, this the zakat, a certain percentage given to charity, although there were no legal penalties for failure to pay the zakat, and the jaziya tax rate was higher than the zakat.

In short, it was economic despotism, not quite economic genocide.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Deepti,

This is my response to your two latest comments. And like you, I'm rather enjoying this :-) As someone earlier pointed out, I sincerely suggest you stop reading history written by Satish Chandra, Romila Thapar, Habib, et al. It is not because they're Communist that I'm saying it but simply because they've been exposed as frauds. I strongly suggest you to read Arun Shourie's "Eminent Historians." From your comments, I'm convinced you keep an open mind, so please read Shourie's book to understand why I mistrust Habib & Co's history-writing. After all, we're trying to arrive at the truth here, right?

Aaman
>>How is taxation 'economic genocide'?
Where did I say that? I specifically said "Jaziya is economic genocide." Perhaps you don't agree with it but here's how. When Islamic rulers couldn't really kill/convert ALL Hindus, they imposed Jaziya, which meant that you make Hindus' daily lives so miserable that they're either forced to convert or die of starvation. Both imply a loss in Hindu population.

>>Coming to jaziya, the 'dhimmi tax', purely in the economic sense, and ignoring the social/religious discriminatory nature of the tax...
Please read this again: isn't it contradictory? You say first that Jaziya is a purely economic tax and almost immediately say that it ignores the social/religious aspect of it. Now, if you are a Muslim, how can the Jaziya be levied on you?
>>We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Thanks, and ROTFL :-)

I meant, that I was ignoring that aspect in my analysis, of course, I did not really ignore it, and as I mention, the Muslim subjects had their own version, albeit a lesser, not-enforced one in the zakat.

BTW, Islamic rulers imposed Jaziya in the 11th century A.D., and despite Aurungzeb's brief excesses, it did not seem to have made a significant dent in either economic or population growth of the empire.

Enjoying this too. Deepti may I suggest primary sources rather than the interpretations you have offered from tertiary ones. If you must then can we move beyond the leftist, "JNU" school of historians and include people like Rajbali Pandey?
Aaman, strange you mention danegeld and judenhut but then not consider the issue of jaziya as humiliating, intimidating and part of the larger exercise of "cleansing" the population by forced migration or conversion. In case of India, obviously the Hindu population was large enough to not migrate or convert in its majority, but hardly conclusive evidence. Furthermore remember that zakat was voluntary but jaziya was not! The form of paying jaziya ensured maximum humiliation, something quite different from zakat or indeed state taxation for purely economic purposes. So here go some Islamic sources (off wikipedia but I can pull out more comprehensive ones if necessary):
Al-Zamakhshari, a Mu'tazili author of one of the standard commentaries on the Qur'an,said that "the Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."
According to Khaled Abou Al-Fadl:"Jizya is conducive to an arrogance that can easily descend into a lack of respect or concern for the well-being or dignity of non-Muslims. When this arrogant orientation is coupled with textual sources that exhort Muslims to fight against unbelievers (kuffar), it can produce a radical belligerency."

Sounds like mafia extortion not state taxation, especially since the price for not paying jaziya is death. Most Muslim kings in India were not able to apply jaziya all through their reigns not for a lack of will or desire but for political reasons where it was difficult to intimidate and force the majority populations on a constant long term basis without running into political difficulties. Thus jaziya was enforced as and when the kings could.
I am assuming there is a some evidence for your claim that economic growth continued unabated during Aurangzeb's reign?
May I also point out that the "population" growth is not necessarily dependent on the largesse of the rulers - a contemporary case in point is the Arab/Palestinian growth rate in Israel despite the harshness of occupation.
In fact evidence suggests that harsh conditions prompt a spike in populations as people "hedge" their bets in terms of the number of children.
Looking forward to what promises to be an interesting discussion....

Whatever be their political leanings but the records they present are solid in their authenticity and like in the court of law one has to provide proof to back their arguments and in this case (with regards to Aurangzeb and his religious policy ) they make a valid argument which is yet to be countered.

Infact in the Delhi University there is a 25 marks question on Aurangzeb's religious policy and this is the crux of the answer.

So if you any valid proof against an accepted interpretation by the entire Delhi University and all the colleges under it with their profs etc please present it.

Aaman,

>>I mention, the Muslim subjects had their own version, albeit a lesser, not-enforced one in the zakat.
I agree. But you can hardly put zakat on the same platform as Jaziya, which was expressly meant to exploit/humiliate.
>>...it did not seem to have made a significant dent in either economic or population growth of the empire.
And the reason is not far to seek, Aaman. In an interesting and exhaustive study of Indian tribals (I forget which author and book), the author traces the origins of lots of these tribals. They were Hindus who fled to the forests to escape Islamic atrocities and steadily evolved a culture of their own. BTW, I've personally seen some of these in Karnataka and they have their own version of worship, Ramayana, Mahabharata and other stuff from Indian mythology. The other reason is despite their efforts, Islamic kings never really could build an Islamic empire in India because they had to continually contend with revolts from Hindus. Those that stayed back chose to pay Jaziya than abandon Hinduism.

anamika, the book is in my shopping list:)

I have no time nowadays, otherwise i would have skewered this screwnut "pankaj".

Deepti,

Well, this is getting more and more and more and more interesting.
>>Whatever be their political leanings but the records they present are solid..
I haven't read Satish Chandra's book, so I'll give the benefit of doubt and agree that these are solid records. BUT those records only show part of the picture for there are OTHER records that show Aurangzeb's religious policy. From here: http://www.bharatvani.org/books/imwat/ch4.htm (check the footnotes for references to primary sources)
'The proselytizing activity of Aurangzeb seems to have started about the year 1666 (the year of Shahjahan's death in prison), and remained unabated till the end of his life."38 He tried his utmost to raise the number of Muslims by all possible means.

In April 1667, four revenue collectors (qanungos), who had been dismissed for various faults, were reinstated on their accepting the Muhammadan faith.39 Aurangzeb's declared policy of "Qanungo basharte Islam"40 (Qanungoship on the condition of conversion to Islam) brought many converts and many Muslim families in Punjab still retain the letter of reinstatement on conversion or fresh appointment of Muslims in place of Hindu Qanungos who were retrenched because they would not convert.41 Such cases belong to places from the Punjab to Bengal which shows that the policy was followed throughout the length and breadth of the county.42 Government appointments and promotions on conversion, too, were of frequent occurrences. Nam Dev was, on conversion, appointed to the command of 400; and Shiva Singh, a grandson of Raja Kishan Das of Amroha was, on becoming Musalman, appointed Musharaf of Imtiazgarh. The News Letters mention conversion of Nek Ram, who rose to acquire the title of a Raja, and Dilawar, who is spoken of as a commander of 1000.
Perhaps, you'll find this interesting (from the same web site):
Criminals were given remission from sentence if they converted to Islam. The Maasir-i-Alamgiri mentions a case in which a Hindu clerk killed the seducer of his sister, but escaped execution by embracing Islam.48 There were many more similar cases.49 In September, 1681, an order was issued that all prisoners who would accept Islam were to be set at liberty.
Sorry, I'm quoting at length, but with a reason:
Thus Aurangzeb's proselytizing zeal resulted in good number of conversions. He seems to have employed all the means at his disposal to raise Muslim population. In the dispute about estates between two brothers or relatives, the Raja or Zamindar who embraced Islam was given the property. Other kinds of pressures or temptations brought other Rajas into the fold of Islam.57 Criminals were set free if they became Muslims. Economic pressure of Jiziyah and inducement of jobs brought in may more converts. Enslavement too was a contributory factor. Then there was sheer force - force by the king, his nobles and local officers. There are references in the reports forwarded by Kotwals and Faujdars about their efforts and achievements in making converts in their jurisdiction. The forcible conversion of Frontier Tribes by Aurangzeb is a well-known fact. "Popular Hindu and Sikh tradition ascribes mass conversions by force to Aurangzeb's reign."58 Christians too were forcibly converted to Islam.59 Both official and non-official sources point to a high rate of conversion, much above the normal. Naturally Aurangzeb seems to have been satisfied with his achievements. Manucci says that just before the emperor died, he said: "I die happy for at least the world will be able to say that I have employed every effort to destroy the enemies of the Muhammedan faith."60
Satish Chandra's evidence of Aurangzeb's good deeds therefore doesn't simply mean that Aurangzeb was tolerant. Stray instances of good/tolerant acts cannot mean decide the overall character of a person. It reminds me of the "Godfather" where the Don's consiligerie considers him as good because he has helped the consilg. Yet does it alter the fact that the Don is a criminal?

I rest my case. Phew!

Sandeep
For instance you state that "when Islamic rulers couldn't really kill/convert ALL Hindus "
you seem to suggest that muslim rulers were primarily interested in killing Hindus.You suggest that they tried hard but could not succeed
Secondly you state that "Islam's violent history in India is a bloody record of burnt idols, temples, libraries, and entire cities." .
There was violence no doubt but that is not the whole story .

Pankaj,

Are you serious about what you said?

Deepti:

I doubt you got my message in the first post - listening to irfan Habib on Aurangzeb and his Hindu policy is like listening to Billy Graham on Bush's Muslim policy! Irfan Habib is at the forefront of the Marxist Historians who are THE folks who messed with our history! So please lets not throw words like "respected" for such folks!

And to get your historical perspective right - Dara Shikoh's major "blunder" in the eyes of the fanatic Aurangzeb was also that he was a Sufi follower and one who borrowed both from HInduism and Islam. So the issues were not just filial as you and your "respected" Historians are wont to project!!

All the Sikh Gurus were non-violent to the core. In fact they probably never got involved into politics and would withstand most humiliations as they could see the "big picture". Guru Gobind, after his father Guru Tegh Bahadur's and his mother and his sons deaths - indeed massacres - changed all that! He was against Aurangzeb's pressure to either convert or be killed.

Guru Gobind Singh's "turnaround" from the lineage of teachings of earlier Gurus is telling and has a strong tale to tell.. if somebody really wants to read it.

Despite that if some ideologue would want to explain the oh-so-not-a-butcher-Aurangzeb's Hindu Policy.. then please I am sorry - you are really insulting my intelligence!!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

"Infact in the Delhi University there is a 25 marks question on Aurangzeb's religious policy and this is the crux of the answer.

So if you any valid proof against an accepted interpretation by the entire Delhi University and all the colleges under it with their profs etc please present it."

Deepti: these profs also claimed that Aryan Invasion was true.. also claimed that Saraswati's existence was nonsensical.. they have never talked of Sikh history in detail in any of the NCERT books.. as to why Sikhism came into being!!

To first put a person on a pedestal and then argue that his position itself makes him a sound origin of information is nonsensical!!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Pankaj and Deepti:
Thanks for bringing another perspective to the argument.

I have never liked Francois Gautier's writings. He used to write at Rediff (may be he still does). He is a [EDITED] Hindu fanatic unlike any Hindu fanatic.

Desh, I have already substantiated my arguments based on authentic records and sources, yours on the other hand is mere verbal bluster, name calling and quoting a few political skirmishes which have nothing to do with authenticity of sources such as the agrarian records, those found in Brindaband amongst the Goswami and the list goes on.

Guru Govind's revolt was religious (agreed) but from Banda Bahadur's time it was a peasant revolt (and yes my source is Irfan habib) it was all due to land revenue.

Even the Jat revolt was peasant revolt since the center was weak. The Marathas on the other hand looted the peasants along with the establishment and the peasants decided to join them rather than be the victims- Shivaji's slogan was 'No Looting No pay'

Irfan Habib has received the Padam Shree but khair you would rather believe the followers of Jagunath Sarkar and his ilk who are more outdated than my grandfather's smelly shoes and be 'in' with the right wing and believe their claptrap that has no evidence to back it.

Its not a Marxist lip service his arguments are backed by let me put it again- EVIDENCE which even you can go read!!

History is open to interpretation, as more research is done, newer records are unraveled, perspective change based on 'proof' and not based some nonsensical fairy dust. Give historians some credit for god's sake.

Your intelligence is your business but after I've backed my viewpoint with solid tangible proof if you'd still rather stick to your arguments then there isn't much I can do but let you bluster the last 'nonsensical' word.

Bravo Sujai!

"He is a rabid Hindu fanatic unlike any Hindu fanatic."

Box the arguer and the argument is closed! you know today's fanatic pseudo-secularists need a better way to join a debate.. seriously!!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Sujai,
my lil anti-hindu fanatic welcome to the debate, i was just wondering if there is any "value point" that u added to the debate other than the fact that Gautier is a Hindu Fanatic, by the same coin (and by ur great pond scum Hitler comparison you very well qualify to be an anti-hindu fanatic my friend.

If there is any ideological war, or any communal war, arm chair generals [Edited] would be the first to kill:- source:- french revolution. Fanatics are the enemies of the people, they are the murderes, be it hindu fanatics or anti-hindu "secular" fanatics. They are philosophical monsters!!!

Others:
In order to be of some use in a debate such as this Historical Literature (whatever source you quote from) has to be

1) Objective
2) Complete AND comprehensive

In whatsoever debates above these two conditions have NOT been proved to be true. Now in such a case, there is very much a possibility that what Sandeep said is true, you CANNOT objectively nor completely disprove it. So as far as arguments is concerned its USELESS to argue on this topic. What we need to search for is objective and unbiased evidence.

I am NOT on both sides, Sandeep's is an interesting proposition, though i must agree that aurangazeb was an unfortunate choice as a metaphor.

We need more evidence for the truth to come out. Don't refer history books that are not objective OR complete (UNLESS there is conclusive evidence in the book OR a contradiction on various historians opinions), but look for conclusive evidence. Until that does not come out, you cannot disproves Sandeeps metaphor.

Laxmi:

We need more evidence for the truth to come out.

I feel the only history chapter you need to read for the real face of Aurangzeb is the Sikh History - which sadly was lacking in our NCERT books.. and for a purpose (I am convinced). For example, there is a reason why Gurudwara Sis Ganj never gets a mention in the Historical buildings/spots of that time.. while Jama Masjid gets.. although they werent too far apart in temporal space!

So my point is chuck the damn NCERT books.. just go through some serious Sikh historian's treatise and then you dont need much evidence thereafter.

Cheers,
Desh

pankaj

while i have not read gautier's work, i agree with you that vandalizing 'gods' and temples was an agreeable form.

we in andhra proudly talk about our history where 'blood flowed like rivers' - saivites and vaishnavites fighting and killing each other and of course vandalizing and converting temples.

again, with a pinch of salt, i am told that the current 'balaji' temple was originally a jain temple and later converted into a saivaite temple - balatripurasundari - and taken over by vaishnavites - hence the name 'balaji' !

so much for the non-violent, accomodating 'hinduism'.

and often dead do not write history.

my problem with the whole thread of discussion is painting islam as the only violent religion if there is something like that. i have my serious problems with such 'constructs'.

however by the same token how peaceful was/is christianity? how many millions have they killed globally? and even now? if you for a second consider monsieur bush as inspired by christian evangelists/whatever, the millions of iraqis who died which side of accounting book do we write?

one of my friends was saying - the debate a few years/decades ago was - whites screwing blacks and browns - the question was - whether the yellows join the whites or browns/blacks. and sir predominantly the whites are christian.

any ways, digressing a little further - what should the shudras and ati-shudras do? demonize all upper castes and nuke them/bomb them/ erase them from history for all the ills that are attributed to them through our long history, even before the whites/christians or the 'muslims' came about here?

what shall we do my friend sandeep about the 'genocide' (i am using rather liberally just like you - economic genocide, cultural genocide etc.) of lower castes - which seem to thrive its ugly head even today?

my submission is there was never or is currently any thing like 'hindu' as a 'SOLID' 'UNIFIED' construct. there never will be. nation states probably yes. however much history is distorted.

my question is if there is one 'standard' cookie-cutter hindu, what does it stand for and what does it have to say about the people who are even today indignified - as untouchables.

i sincerely and humbly believe that charity begins at home.

cheers

Pankaj - true to form - is a highly biased and ideological anti-Hindu. The Indian Marxists like Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar belong to the same genre - self-hate. They mix up issues to deny the evidence and obfuscate the main point i.e. that Muslim rule in India had subjected Hinduism to an atrocious oppression unparalleled in India's history before and since.

While Sandeep's thesis might be extreme and a tad provocative, I find the views that Pankaj represents to be intellectually dishonest. This spectrum of thought can be compared to the European fascist and Islamic fascist who deny the reality of the European holocaust.

Balaji

you are mixing issues here. First your narrative on Tirupati is completely incorrect! Two, the point on whether there was a unified construct of Hindu or not is irrelevant. There is no unified construct of Christianity either! About social oppression, this has been universal. Islam's treatment of the non-Muslim, of women and of slavery was hardly better.

And do give the evidence of Saivites and Vaishnavites killing each other in Andhra with the rivers of blood flowing. Only in your imagination, I suppose!

Deepti

Your argument would be stronger if you had quoted a broader set of historians than rely on a particularly controversial one i.e. Irfan Habib. Yes, he got the Padma Shree, but that like the Nobel peace prize is not exactly neutral. The relevant Government at that time with its ideological inclination rewards it to its cohorts.

The Indian Marxist historian is a biased historian whose reading of history is selective and taken out of context.

The Indian Marxists currently control the Departments of History in major Indian universities such as JNU. With that platform, they are able to twist the past to suit their nebulous aims in the present. I refer here to Habib Irfan, Harbans Mukhia, K.N. Panikkar, R.S. Sharma, Romila Thapar and Sarvapalli Gopal. Other individuals such as Arundhati Roy, Barkha Datta, Brinda Karat, Mani Shankhar Aiyer, N. Ram and Praful Bidwai in India, and Meera Nanda, Sarmila Bose, Sugato Bose and Sumantro Bose overseas continue to occupy the intellectual and media space in a disproportionate manner. Given this anti-Hindu intellectual space, I think Sandeep is playing a useful role in trying to reopen a debate that is needed.

Best

Sandeep

You raise a difficult issue and I am slightly uncomfortable. So let me reword it. But first a preface.

Columbus discovered the Americas in the late 1400s, a process that set into motion the death of millions of native Americans. In other words, the extermination of native Americans coincided with the introduction of Christianity.

The Anglo Saxon colonization of Australia had the same impact. The Aborigines died off.

European rule led to the trans-atlantic slave trade where millions of Africans were shipped across to the Americas to a life of servititude and slavery. And of course, they were baptized into the Christian faith. Meanwhile, the source areas in West Africa were depopulated by the slave trade.

The spread of Islam was linked to a religious-inspired military activity as well be it in India, the Sahel or the Balkans. And yes, many Hindus were killed in what is today Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Many also converted under duress. The Hindu-Muslim interface was a particularly troublesome one, one that can not be washed away.

But most areas that turned Muslim had hitherto a Buddhist, not a Hindu population i.e. Afghanistan, Sindh, West Punjab, North West Frontier Province and East Bengal. Somehow, Hindu areas tended to be more resilient to the impact of Islam unlike Buddhist areas that succumbed. I also refer here to Central Asia i.e. what is today Uzbekistan, Kirghiztan, Kazakhastan, Xinjiang etc.

This is not to discount the killing, enslavement and conversion under duress of large numbers of Hindus in India. The history of Sikhism illustrates the oppression faced in the Punjab very clearly. In more modern times, the events surrounding partition and Pakistan's subsequent murder of 1,500,000 East Bengalis (where Hindus were disproportionately targeted) in 1971 is another case in point.

However, I am uncomfortable with the use of the word Holocaust. I can not pinpoint the reasons for the discomfort. But I am uneasy with the term used here.

So let us instead call it the murder of thousands under numerous invasions from Mohammed of Ghazni, to Timur, to Nadir Shah to Ahmed Shah Durrani etc.

I've read this a couple of times through, and while the names are not familiar to me at all, and neither are the specific events, the ring made by the sound of the history of persecution is extremely familiar.

While my own knowledge of the history of the sub-continent is woefully inadequate, might I suggest a slightly different analogy to the author, one that appears more appropriate to the time frame involved?

The Romans made their first appearance in the enighborehood of Judea when a Roman legate took off his sandal in the vicinity of Gaza and drew a line in the sand, telling the Seleucid general that if he crossed that line, his country would be at war with Rome. This was approximately 2,200 years ago. A little under 2,000 years ago, the Judean entity was destroyed entirely by the Romans, who destroyed our Temple and who banned the study of Judaism, along with a whole series of Jewish practices. For the next seven hundred years or so, they systematically persecuted the Jewish majority in the country, driving it out or killoing it bit by bit, until finally it became a minority with the conquest of the area by the new Moslem religion.

This period of persecution of the Jewish people, when the name Palestine was first widely applied to the country (an insult to the Judaeans whose ancient enemy was the Phillistines), sounds a lot like the period of time described above, though the number killed was much smaller; there were far fewer people living here in the fist place.

Just a thought...

well well, the kid who always cries "personal attack!" is at it himself. this is from #37:

sujai:

He (Francois Gautier) is a rabid Hindu fanatic unlike any Hindu fanatic.

dont leave this space folks. sujai is going to come back here and explain to us why that doesnt amount to a personal attack.

all those who arent that gullible, get some beers. we'll watch the show.

ps: note the absence of a rational, objective counterargument to francois gautier's or sandeep's article. instead, all you have is name calling and vilification. that's the typical response of the marxist, pseudosecular, anti-hindu fanatic brigade for you. praful bidwai excels at it. sujai is just a junior. such arrogant and elitist behaviour only emphasizes their intolerance of and indifference/closemindedness to differing opinions.

Ruvy

A fascinating thought and an apt comparison indeed with the caveat that you make, not to mention the fact that India remained predominantly Hindu.

I have specifically taken time out to comment on #22. [quote] Infact in the Delhi University there is a 25 marks question on Aurangzeb's religious policy and this is the crux of the answer.

So if you any valid proof against an accepted interpretation by the entire Delhi University and all the colleges under it with their profs etc please present it. [unquote]

Really Madam!!!! 25 marks, is it?????? And i presume, if the kind student, who has mugged up his answers [ prescribed by the marx - mullah brotherhood led by satish chandra, hasan, habib, thapar et all] and writes it the way politburo has benchmarked, he gets 25/25!!!!!

While those poor souls who haven't been able to give the "right" answers, are banished to hell. Where they are still searching for the "evidence".

Blessed are the ways of the brotherhood.

Golconda was attacked by Aurangazeb, because it was SHIA kingdom.

It's important to understand what Sandeep has raised here. It could be a possibility. There is a need to know what happened- that allows us to learn from it and not repeat it- while some want to learn from it and avenge it. Did Hindu Holocaust happen in India? I guess it depends on how one defines a Holocaust. Sandeep, Francois Gautier, KS Lal, et al, have defined it in their own way and they concluded that 80 million Hindus vanished during a 500 year period due to Islamic rule.

'Did they vanish because of ethnic cleansing?' is a relevant question.

During medieval periods many European nations lost their populations. In a one-hundred period, Europe lost one-third of its population (Black Death). A historian may attribute it to Inquisition and an author could easily write an argument as follows:

"During medieval period between 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Europe lost one-third of its population. During the same period Inquisition took place in different parts of Europe. Therefore, I conclude that Inquisition resulted in death of this one-third population."

May not be a logical argument! If one were to add the element of one dreadful disease, the whole argument collapses.

I do not discount the Hindu Holocaust theory right away, but the details and accounts provided are sketchy. More revelations and historic documents may throw light on this subject- either supporting this theory or disproving it.

There are many theories that are floating around- that Taj Mahal is actually a Hindu monument built by a Hindu King, that Man never landed on the Moon, that Subhas Chandra Bose is still alive, etc. If one were to read these documents, they all sound plausible. They give reference to some author who in turn quotes another author, and so on.

If indeed a Hindu Holocaust happened, we need to know. And the learning has to happen.

With such minimal evidences and arguments, those who want to believe it will believe it, and some of us will continue to be skeptical. May be, we need a much stronger argument, which is hard to come by since this took place so many years ago.

The examples given by pankaj, Deepti, balaji and Ruvy in Jerusalem suggest that temple-breaking and decimating one's enemy was carried out by different religions and kingdoms, not necessarily confined to Islamic invasions that India has seen.

balaji- Can you give some sources to your saivites and vaishnavites killing each other? I would be interested in knowing about this in detail. One of the interesting aspects is how Hinduism has expelled Buddhism. According to some historians, this expulsion wasn't that peaceful.

In attempting to deny the religious angle of Muslim destruction of Hindu temples, Sujai you have resorted to the worst form of rationale. As you point out the plague was the biggest scourge in Europe in late Middle Ages. The Inquisition reaches its peak a bit later, starting with the Spanish expulsion of Muslims and Jews. So OBVIOUSLY one CANNOT logically conclude that the Inquisition was to blame for the deaths caused by the plague. Moreover, the plague deaths were so clearly recorded and evidenced that it would be impossible to link the Inquisition to them (although the witch trials, heresy trials and killings of the Jews for allegedly bringing plague to towns CAN definitely be attributed to the church). Sorry - that is spurious reasoning at its best. I can understand your noble intentions but the logic you offer is intellectually dishonest.
Moreover, lumping the Taj Mahal theory with landing on the moon and Bose being alive is a disingenuous attempt at discrediting what may well be a valid historical HYPOTHESIS (note NOT theory or fact, but hypothesis). After all Muslim architecture in much of India was placed over earlier temples and palaces. The refusal of the Delhi school of historians in conjunction with "secular" politicians (Habib, Hasan, Chandra, Thapar et al) to allow ASI to excavate sites like Agra and Fatehpur Sikri simply prevent the facts from emerging. The major fear of these excavations is that it would PROVE the destruction of Hindu sites. But then why expect intellectual honesty from historians who inform us that the temple pillars in the Qutab Minar were "recycled" rather than pillaged and used! You REALLY want the truth? Then allow ASI to excavate! And then dont interfere if the facts that show up are radically different from the "acceptable secular" version.
Ruvy - I agree that the Roman invasion of Judea resulted in many deaths of the Jews, and following the final uprising ending in Massadah, their expulsion. They weren't killed BECAUSE of their religion ALONE by the Romans. Yes, Jews have been killed for religion in various other epochs, but the Roman example was not the best one possible. Perhaps the Venetian massacres or the Russian pogroms would be more appropriate as similes.
Deepti - I am quite disappointed that your argument is limited to 25% of exam question. I am also surprised that you have been unable to find ANY historian beyond the Delhi school of historical research. Therein perhaps lies the weakness in your argument.
Finally, for those who believe that Islam stopped its destruction of temples, may I remind you all of the Bamiyan Buddhas. Rory Stewart who travelled there after the rout of the Taliban reports that the monasteries in the mountains around and behind the Buddhas (following classical Buddhist cave architecture) showed absolute destruction. Even the frescoes on the roof of the caves were stamped out with boots by the Taliban who could not bear them.

Anamika:

When today's history is written by the Irfan Habibs of tomorrow then today's terrorism and Bamiyan Buddhas will be explained away by the "economic" reasons... that the folks bombing London and the US planes were very well off - indeed from one of the richest countries of the world!

oh well..

cheers,
desh
drishtikone.com

Desh:
Or maybe as our lil ol [EDITED] Sujai suggested: Bamiyan Budhas fell down coz of other reasons.. such as maybe Plague!!!!!

Lol...

Sujai

Buddhism disappeared in India for a number of reasons, one being the impact of Islam. The destruction of Nalanda, Odantapuri, Vikramasheela et al between 1200 and 1206 CE - all centers of Buddhist learning - by Bakhtiyar Khalji and the flight of Buddhist monks to Tibet led to the disappearance of the Buddhist ecclesiastical order. The laity could not survive in India sans a clergy.

Hinduism survived the Muslim epoch because it was not dependent on the Sangha as Buddhism was.

Another reason was the internal decay within Buddhism associated with Tantrism. The reasons are several but to attribute that to Hinduism is being simplistic.

I completely agree with Manisha that there is simply no evidence of the "rivers of blood" due to Saivites and Vaishnavites allegedly killing each other as Balaji suspects!!

Best regards

Anamika:
I don't deny if any Hindu Holocaust happened. If indeed it happened, its important to learn it and educate it. For that, we do need to construct the necessary story using evidences and documents (if any available). Otherwise, it would be speculative since this has happened in the remote past.

I don't deny destruction of Hindu Temples by Muslim invaders. I belong to a town where all temples were vandalized by Muslim invaders and some were completely razed to ground.

The examples cited above (by pankaj, et al) show that such destruction, vandalism and massacre of invaded country or kingdom was a revalent practise, not confined to Islamic invaders alone, and not confined to a religion or a region.

This does not mean I deny the destruction of such temples nor it means I condone them.

Yes, lets agree that there has been destruction, sometimes state-sponsored (or, king-sponsored), of Hindu Temples by Islamic kings and invaders. Also, agree that such destruction was prevalent in different invasions, even between Hindu Kings and Kingdoms, and elsewhere, where religion was not always involved.

The question is whether such destruction was unique to Islamic invaders? Or was it the something that was practised during those times?

Yes, Bamiyan is a case of Islamic destruction. Then, how do you categorize Babri Masjid?
You may say that it is an isolated incident. Then Bamiyan is an isolated incident in the contemporary history. If you go into the past, then you have to compare with other incidents of that past.

Coming to this Hindu Holocaust theory, we would like to see more evidences than one Mr. KS Lal. In light of those evidences (if any), I think we need to learn and educate. Attributing the missing 80 million to ethnic cleansing sponsored by Islam is flimsy.

in history there are always instances of opression of the conquored by the conquorer. so if we go on reading history in reverse chrono order we will always have some thing to strengthen our beliefs and make someone look bad.

can u let me know how this helps us in today's world? lets not bicker about things we cannot change and on the other hand work to a better India with a better standard of living for all

Balaji,

These are your words:

we in andhra proudly talk about our history where 'blood flowed like rivers' - saivites and vaishnavites fighting and killing each other and of course vandalizing and converting temples.

again, with a pinch of salt, i am told that the current 'balaji' temple was originally a jain temple and later converted into a saivaite temple - balatripurasundari - and taken over by vaishnavites - hence the name 'balaji' !

I am from Andhra Pradesh too but I never came across that "blood flowing like rivers" funda. Can you please care to explain or provide evidence? Can you point me to a book or newspaper article ATLEAST?

And then you continue with:

my submission is there was never or is currently any thing like 'hindu' as a 'SOLID' 'UNIFIED' construct.

But you contradicted yourself earlier:

so much for the non-violent, accomodating 'hinduism'.

WTF?!

Clinching evidence will come out only when ASI allows excavation at Fatehpur Sikri and Agra. And if it is indeed true that the structures there were built on Hindu temples, everybody deserves to know the truth.

Germans dont hide behind their WWII crimes. They tell their children what happened in their country during the Nazi era. Likewise, every Indian child should be told what happened in their country during the Islamic period. I'm afraid we're doing a poor job.

The introduction of dubious elements into this debate, who have earlier "argued" very shrewdly and callously, for giving up kashmir to the islamists, [and being supportive of the hindu cleansing] has vitiated the atmosphere here on this forum.

Because from now on, we will witness the time tested techniques of the charlatan like "be polite if you want a response" - "i dont reply to such comments" and other such sundry nonsense.

Here are a few facts for everyone on this forum. Particularly to those who have grown up reading the marxist staple [read trash] on Indian history. [Ms Deepti, please pay attention].

Islam, spread out of Arabia through wars and conquests. It killed millions and destroyed entire civilizations [zorasterian, egyptian] before the marauders came to India. The earliest records of the muslim chroniclers, translated by Elliot and Dowson [The history of india as told by its own historians. It is a ten volume collection] gives very proud and lurid accounts of there battles and early conquests in India.

To me, as a hindu, when i read it now, i do understand that millions of my brethren died fighting and resisting this evil. They put on a valiant struggle but ultimately were consumed, due to Indian disunity. Will Durant, in his 11 volume collection, The story of Civilization, attributes this to Indian disunity. Durant states that "India invited these invasions for three centuries, and it finally came......"

The fact to learn for every Indian, is that we resisted islam, we were defeated, we lived under muslim despotism for centuries, and we finally screwed the islamists, with the rise of Marathas under Shivaji [PEACE BE UPON HIM] and by the Sikhs.

The textbooks that has been authored by the marx-mullah brotherhood [led by thapar, chandra, hasan, habib] is frankly a great deal of cock and bull. It attempts to rationalize and fudge history, and this would become apparant when one actually reads the translations of the original manuscripts written by the muslim chroniclers. The muslim chroniclers had no doubt in their minds as to what they were doing. They were killing the kafirs [hindus] and bringing the "true" religion [islam] to them. And there is quite a triumphant record of such killings of combatants as well as non-combatants in these records.

As a sidenote, millions of hindus [men, women and children, and these were among the elites of the population] were made slaves and transported to muslim lands. This transportation killed off millions and an entire mountain range is named Hindukush, literally meaning, "crusher of the hindus".

Read about this history. Learn about it. Share it.

Because those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.

The F%$$head at 52 says: [quote] Yes, Bamiyan is a case of Islamic destruction. Then, how do you categorize Babri Masjid?

You may say that it is an isolated incident. Then Bamiyan is an isolated incident in the contemporary history.[unquote]

Well dude, please care to read Ayodhya: The case against the temple, by Koenraad Elst.

All the gory details of the marx-mullah brotherhood is catalogued in that seminal book. It is is a must read for you [as it can expand any pea-sized brain]. The VHP right till the very end presented evidence in the form of extensive historical records [contact the nearest VHP office for details] as to how Hindus have, throughout history, right since the time of destruction of the Ram temple, have tried to reclaim the site.

The mullahs, with active backing of the marxist "intellectuals" [read charlatans] used every dirty trick in the book to scuttle a settlement. There was never any plans to destroy the mosque, built on top of a revered temple. In fact, the VHP and other hindu groups had offered to shift the defunct structure at an adequate place and perform kar seva on the shifted site.

It is only when it got established that the mullahs [under active backing of the charlatans] have no willingness to listen, that a massive rage was unleashed, that ended up in the destruction of the structure [which was very fitting and appropriate].

Your disingenous arguments regarding bamiyan buddhas and babri masjid are meant for 10 year old kids. You need to drill such poop-o-ganda to them and not here. Around here, you always run the risk of bumping against fellow screwheads like ME who can always take you to the CLEANERS.

The idea of debate Sujai is an exchange of information followed by your own research. So far all references to primary sources have come from posters who dispute your view. Isn't the logical response to at least check out some of those sources?
Yes, temples were destroyed in the past by Hindu kings - in fact Chanakya has an entire chapter in his Arthashastra on how to kill a king in a temple and all the parts of a temple - including the gates, bell or idol - that can be used for the assassination.
The difference there was a complete lack of religious, evangelical intent or motivation. Nor was the destruction of the temple intended to humiliate, oppress or psychologically defeat and thus destroy the invaded population and its culture by destroying dearly held SYMBOLS of their religion and culture. The Islamic destruction - iconoclasm at its most effective - was intended to destroy the non-Islamic cultures and thus served a SPECIFIC religious purpose and only a tertiary politico-military one. This is why and how Islam destroyed all local religious traditions in its wake - including Zoroastrians in Iran and Buddhists in Afghanistan and north Pakistan. That is why it is a specific command to the believers in the Koran regarding the non-believers - convert or destroy!
Now to the crux of your post - Babri was NOT an isolated event but (possibly) the first of a new reaction to a long historical chain of destruction of temples by Islam and the appropriation of the lands for Islamic buildings. As such it forms a new episode in the history of resistance that Hinduism has offered Islam. Was it right? No. Was it justifiable? Probably not. Was it understandable. Yes, if you see it as the most recent act of resistance to Islam!
Similarly - Bamiyan was yet ANOTHER in the long line of acts of vandalism and iconoclasm perpetrated by Islam. Was it right? No. Was it justifiable? Probably not. Was it understandable? Yes, if you see it as an intrinsically pious Islamic act that closely follows the religion's historic trajectory.

PS Atlantean, the ASI is desperate to excavate Sikri and Agra but the excavations have been repeatedly stopped on political grounds. Since 1948, Sikri excavations have started and stopped four times. The NDA government allowed the excavations at Sikri - which revealed a city far larger than ever imagined, and obviously much older than the one attributed to Akbar by "secularist" historians like Chandra, Habib, Thapar et al. They revealed the initial layers of a major Rajput/Jain city as the original Sikri, a claim substantiated by the ethnographic studies of the "Sikarwar" Rajputs of the area and began shedding new light on the possible reason Akbar constructed the "Bulund Darwaza" or his victory gate at Sikri. The excavations were rapidly stopped again by the new political dispensation after the 2003 elections.
A similar story has been repeated with the excavations at Ferozshah Kotla and various other "Islamic" sites around Delhi, Agra and Rajasthan. The "Razia ki masjid" in Varanasi built by Razia Sultan has been credibly and historically proven based on documents to be the site of one of the oldest Shiv temples in the world. Yet no excavation is allowed (forget the mosque, even in the areas adjoining it) by the government.
I agree with you on Germany as a model. Lets start looking at history and facing up to it.

Anamika:
You have a certain view of Islam. Some of us do not share that view of Islam. You see these incidents to be related and give it a context and meaning. We include more incidents perpetrated by other groups and see it as a phenomenon more generic to all civilizations, which we believe is applicable in different times and places with different connotations and expressions.

You believe there is continuity in certain actions of Islam. I believe differently. Bamiyan incident has come about after many changes in history and topology of world events. I see it as a certain Islamic sect trying to identify with their' past in a crude and crooked way by repeating certain abominable actions. Certain radical groups tend to repeat such actions to identify themselves with their glorified view of the past. Some neo-nazis groups wear old symbols, perform old rituals, and carry out arson to identify themselves with their version of glorified Third Reich.

One can argue a debate forever. Some of us don't come here just to debate. We come here to exchange views and opinions, express our support if we like the opinion or express disagreement when we do not. We do not believe that each and every sentence needs to analyzed and refuted. Sometimes it's OK, but most times its not. It creates an unhealthy atmosphere.

You may want to believe that we have conceded the debate, that we have escaped when pushed into a corner, etc. You are entitled to your belief. However, that's not true. I tend to disassociate from an argument when it becomes clear that further emphasis on the same point will not bring in any reconciliation. Some of us want to learn from arguments of others and learn new things and new opinions that we seem to like. There are many arguments on Desicritics that I may not agree with. When I don't agree, most often, I don't write comments on those posts. When I do disagree and believe I need to write, I usually write a comment or two to express disagreement and I believe that's good enough. I don't intend to carry on a very long debate where every line is scrutinized, analyzed and refuted.

When it becomes clear that there are irreconcilable differences, one has to stop the argument and part ways agreeing that each of us has different belief systems. That's a good way to end an argument- according to me. Of course, there are some out there who do not want to let go till one of them is proven right and other is proven wrong. This happens in relationships too. This happens in such forums too. I try to quit before it degenerates. One can always carry his/her opinions around and bounce it off another person at a later date. It's more like 'Let's agree to disagree, for now'.

Professor Deepti bleats:
Sources please to substantiate the argument.

Why don't you substantiate yours, since you're certainly making one yourself.

Have you heard of jaziya? It was one of the main sources of income for the state during Aurangzeb's time. He had more to gain by levying taxes on Hindus than by converting them or killing them- simple economics.

Oh, dear Professor of Economics -- Dear Miss Amartya Sen -- please do elaborate on this ritual of fattening turkeys for Thanksgiving harvest.

Surely then one shouldn't have been protesting Apartheid South Africa, with its heavy reliance on low-cost black labour.

With taxation such a useful advantage, then why wasn't tax levied on fellow Muslims by Aurangzeb?

Why accuse the Bania state of discrimination against Muslims today, since according to your argument, any economic oppression would be disadvantageous for tax collection purposes? I can pick apart your straw man argument at will, because it's hypocritical and worthless. These are the kind of "editors", "moderators" and assorted "enlightened minds" we have on ViDesiCritics.com

Read Irfan Habib for a fresh perspective on Aurangzeb's Deccan Policy and his Hindu Policy

Ah, of course. The Deepti Lamba perspective, you mean. Brilliant analysis.

Sujai bleats:
Yes, Bamiyan is a case of Islamic destruction. Then, how do you categorize Babri Masjid?

Bamiyan was a calculated pre-meditated act, and there was no pre-existing Muslim mosque underneath the Greek Buddhas.

The same cannot be said for the Babri Masjid.

Small tip for Islamists: don't always try to build your holy places on top of the holy places of others. Yes, I know you're your own biggest fans and proclaimers of your own virtue and tolerance for others, but your claims won't have much credibility with others outside of your flock. Show some respect and tolerance for other peoples' cultures