Artistic fredom yes, but not with Aurangzeb's depiction

[sandtest]

Nobody is running away here ... We had tonnes of discussions about this topic .. You are quick to point out the atrocities of the Maniac Mughals and Islamists in general but not a single thread has been created by you , DR and Sandtest talking about the support they got from Hindu subjects .... So much for truth seeking .. Afraid to paint your own community as cowards ?? Ever wondered who some of the biggest traitors of India are ... surprised that the list includes upper caste Rajputs or the Brahmin Peshwas....

KR, I agree, even today, you can easily find one Jai Chand out of every 10 Hindu. Today, What we see in Teestas, Arundhotis and Kuldip Nayyars, they are nothing but modern day Jai Chands, ready to stab their own Indian brethrens in back for the lust of some "awards". But at the moment, the bigger picture is that how we can correct the balatant mis-protrayal of likes of Tippu Sultan and Aurangzeb. KR, you don't know, but offline, BossBhai really took this history project with one of the pseaudo-historian who claimed expertise in Mughal history of India, perheps the so called eminent historian was from Australia and published a book, I guess. Point is, look at the bigger picture, rest will fall in place automatically after that.

[sandtest]

Marrirs man, in all fairness, you really, inturrupted the flow of an otherwise what could have turned a good history discussion thread. Bhai, let posters use their intelectual prowess to bring out history rather than indulge in this obssession of "gross generalization" and thereby the mood. BB asked you explanation, beacuse the part of my post which you bolded and termed as generalization is verifiable historical fact.

[Ram]

Marrirs man, in all fairness, you really, inturrupted the flow of an otherwise what could have turned a good history discussion thread. Bhai, let posters use their intelectual prowess to bring out history rather than indulge in this obssession of "gross generalization" and thereby the mood. BB asked you explanation, beacuse the part of my post which you bolded and termed as generalization is verifiable historical fact.

Fair enough. I dont want to get in the way, nor do I want 'moderation' to be at the forefront of debating. As I said, that is the last of my 'clarification' posts, but the rules still had to be made clear. Happy debating fellas!

[kumble_rocks]

KR' date=' I agree, even today, you can easily find[b'] one Jai Chand out of every 10 Hindu. Today, What we see in Teestas, Arundhotis and Kuldip Nayyars, they are nothing but modern day Jai Chands, ready to stab their own Indian brethrens in back for the lust of some "awards". But at the moment, the bigger picture is that how we can correct the balatant mis-protrayal of likes of Tippu Sultan and Aurangzeb. KR, you don't know, but offline, BossBhai really took this history project with one of the pseaudo-historian who claimed expertise in Mughal history of India, perheps the so called eminent historian was from Australia and published a book, I guess. Point is, look at the bigger picture, rest will fall in place automatically after that.

That's an understatement Sandy . It was more like 8 out of 10 during the Mughal rule .... How do you explain 12000 force of Babur conquering almost entire India without local support ? or the fact that 14 year old Akbar became an Emperor and ruled India for so long ... History can be skewed in any way you want , some british historians have painted tipu in poor light .. The fact that Nizam back stabbed clearly shows that he was hardly torch bearer of Islam. Granted , he had his moments though especially in his early stage of rule..

[Guest dada_rocks]

Show me a thread created by you ' date=' BB , Sanstest bashing Jai Singh and his elk ? Talk about hypocrisy , not acknowledging the fact that some Hindus are so twisted that they don't mind serving these Mughal maniacs ...[/quote'] Thread I have created had he been considered an individual of virtue ....what is there to add in the history book which rightly calls this chump a chump.. .......I agree with his depictionm in our history books why should I bother with him .. I disagree with the clown Aurnagjeb's veneration in ouor history books hence I write about it............

[Guest dada_rocks]

MM is nusisance let him write his one-liners guys.. mneanwhile keep exposing the lacunae in our history books.....

[Ram]

I have a question, When I saw the movie 'Jodha Akbar', Akbar was portrayed as a 'secular, peace loving ruler'. How accurate is that?

[Guest dada_rocks]

That's an understatement Sandy . It was more like 8 out of 10 during the Mughal rule .... How do you explain 12000 force of Babur conquering almost entire India without local support ? or the fact that 14 year old Akbar became an Emperor and ruled India for so long ... History can be skewed in any way you want ' date=' some british historians have painted tipu in poor light .. The fact that Nizam back stabbed clearly shows that he was hardly torch bearer of Islam. Granted , he had his moments though especially in his early stage of rule..[/quote'] Now you are doing over-kill 8 out of 10... yes if u define not supporting others in time of need as helping the islamist army then the number might read like that.. Babur as blood-thirsty islamist mofo as he was was very smart war-monger.. You need to read some text on his Panipat war plans.. how he let enemy free pass lulling them into thought that tbabur is on the run and sprang a surprise attack.. Moreover many a war has been lost and won due to scare for one or another reason.. For instance Akbar /Bairam khan was about to lose when he got lucky and Hemu was felled.. One Hemu hardly meant anything in whole schme eof war power but this kind of sent hemu's army in disarray.. Not every war where supposedly outnumbered won has to be due tohe fact that some broken reed helped the opponent of supposedly strong army...........

[Guest dada_rocks]

I have a question, When I saw the movie 'Jodha Akbar', Akbar was portrayed as a 'secular, peace loving ruler'. How accurate is that?

Any king in business of expanding his kingdom can't be peace loving.. be peace if you mean presence or absence of selctive persecution of his own subject then he was peace loving he was not as blood thirsty as Aurangjeb..Just sample this he surroounded Chittod fort for six months .. when he finally vanquished the fort not even a single soul was left alive old young able-bodied handicapped men women all put to sword..... this is certainly not peace-loving guy.. as far as secularism goes well he was promoter of islam but not unabashed detsroyer of traces of other religion.. Rahim khan Khana ione of his nav-ratna is said to be Krishana wworshipper then he had Birbal etc.. so was relatively better

[Kriterion]

It not only emboldens Islamists in their arguement that Islam is all peace and love but it also in a way prevents them from knowing their true 'INDIC" roots and there by their assimilation in greater Indic culture of India, this is simply because if an Indian Muslim is taught that Islam spread in India by peace, then he will simply hold Islamic invaders like Aurangzeb, Ghazni and Ghauri as rulers and method of Islam propagation in high esteem, thereby it will prevent him from fully realizing his INDIC roots and how they got converted!

personally, i am proud of my background as a desi muslim. i think everyone should be proud of who they are, so long as it doesn't lead to evils of racism, ethnocentrism, patriotitism, and/or nationalism. i'm fully aware that there is the small chance of my ancestors being forcibly converted to islam. however, if thats true it means two things: a) that i'm the victim and b) even if "muslims" are to be blamed, i haven't done anything wrong. btw, aurengzeb sucked.

[THX_1138]

These guys do have propensity to buy the arcane fictional stuff .. in chit-chat forum I am handling a sample thinking 9/11 was inside job and other who thinks pilgrims raped a girl in front fo their wives that resulted into seamless execution of violence of godhara tranin burning scale within minutes.. Once while travelling from Varanasi to Delhi I came to near fist-fight with a maulana defending Aurangjeb in train......Few of my friends checked me telling it's Aligarh region and anything could happen, so chill. Even in this trip found a very reaosnable muslim lawyer from Patna who was seemed as normal as anyone till I broached up the topic of sucide bomber and he showed his mental make-up by showering them with adjective of bravery....

dude... who do you travel with? when i travel by train in india, its such a fulfilling experience to observe people's behavior; the nuances of their actions... their initial guard against unknown company and how something so benign as a mutual agreement over a small an insiginificant affair can melt that guard and permits the people to interact with each other seamlessly! try not to get embroidled into such debates with fools who are suffering from mass delusion.

[THX_1138]

Any king in business of expanding his kingdom can't be peace loving.. be peace if you mean presence or absence of selctive persecution of his own subject then he was peace loving he was not as blood thirsty as Aurangjeb..Just sample this he surroounded Chittod fort for six months .. when he finally vanquished the fort not even a single soul was left alive old young able-bodied handicapped men women all put to sword..... this is certainly not peace-loving guy.. as far as secularism goes well he was promoter of islam but not unabashed detsroyer of traces of other religion.. Rahim khan Khana ione of his nav-ratna is said to be Krishana wworshipper then he had Birbal etc.. so was relatively better

i think that was the prevelant modus operandi in those times... when you wish to conquer and subjugate a monarchy, greater terror and oppression was usually the only tool that the invaders employed. cant blame him alone, the rajputs were just as brutal amongst themselves.

[CC1981]

I have a question, When I saw the movie 'Jodha Akbar', Akbar was portrayed as a 'secular, peace loving ruler'. How accurate is that?

There are many inaccuracies in the movie, but more or less, Akbar was as secular as they come ( in those eras). He was very open to marriage alliances and vassalage of small itty bitty rulers instead of non-stop conquest ala Khilji or Aurangzeb. You must realize one thing about Akbar : by upbringing and conduct, he was a Turk, since it wasnt until Akbar married a rajput princess that the Mughals became Indianized - culturally as well as by birth. And in true Mongol fashion, Akbar dealt brutally with sedetion (something i dont have a problem with, it leads to good national unity). The Turko-Mongol rulership, right from the time of Rouran confederacy, down through Chinggis, Batu,Kublai, The Seljuks, Mughals, Uzbeks and Oghuz Turks, all had one commonality in governance : they didnt bother much with the internal administration and customs of a region : their realms were divided into many provinces, where each province paid a certain amount of tax, contributed a certain amount of young men for the imperial forces and hosted the occasional imperial visits. Beyond that, the Turko-Mongol rulership left you alone, unless you rebelled: rebellions were crushed with singular dedication, sometimes to make examples of against sedition and when the situation calmed down, it was back to their 'paise, chokre and party, beyond that i don't care if you marry goats, worship donkeys, etc' rulership. As far as religion goes, Akbar was fairly non-relgious a person. He was illiterate throughout his life in his latter years, started his own religion ( Din-i-llahi) which was basically a rejection of islam,hinduism and all other psychotic religions that are prevalent in our part of the world. However, it failed to take off after Akbar died. IMO, there is very little difference between Akbar and Indian rulers of historical antiquity. Sure, we may put Ashoka on a different plane (he is the only emperor in my knowledge-worldwide- who adopted pacifistic views encompassing all and implemented them, his army post kalinga being a strictly defensive force) and if we are prepared to listen to anecdotes, perhaps elevate Vikramaditya of Ujjain to that level. But there is very little difference between Ashoka and Chandragupta Maurya or Rajaraja Chola or Gautamiputra Satakarmi, etc etc. and IMO is one of the great rulers of India.