Tiger80 Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 I can't answer for a big deal being made out of it, but can speak only for myself and I was not in favor of renaming of VT either, nor Bombay etc. my view is that if names change organically that is fine but forcing a change shouldn't be done. About the Kalinga war, it is one of the better documented events from that era by Ashoka himself. There are clear mentions of villages being razed and plundered and deportations. How is that not ethnic cleansing? I don't see any honoring of Aurangzeb. The name was given by the British who were by no means friendly with the Mughals in a certain historical context referring to past rulers of India regardless of their benevolence. I can't see any reason why British would want to honor Aurangzeb. After independence I can't recall any honoring of Aurangzeb. In fact, Indian Muslims purposely avoid naming their children as Aurangzeb in general. What this event has triggered is some MLA actually honoring Aurangzeb by naming a road after him in retaliation because a section of Muslims now see this as an attempt to marginalize their history. Kalinga war is pretty well documented by Ashoka himself with accounts of villages being plundered and mass deportations. Your point about Dawood is facetious because if he is captured he will be jailed and hanged. As I wrote above there are no attempts made to glorify Aurangzeb. This road was named by the British. By needlessly raking up the issue, the effect has been that of glorification by a certain section because they see it as an attempt to erase Islamic history. Again, as I stated above it will be very rare to find Indian Muslims naming their child as Aurangzeb or Taimur for example. In no modern dialogue by Muslims in India is Aurangzeb hinted as being some benevolent monarch. But by deliberately erasing a name whose premise is historical rather than glorification conveys the impression of erasing history to suit parochial agendas. Read carefull what I said ,Dawood have to do something extraordinary good like like eliminating terror network of world by telling information about them if he had and in return he may be pardoned , Asoka in history did something exceptional which never any expansionist king did and that is giving up arms, that's why his story became famous And Britishers did name many places like connaught place which are still known by it and govt did change their name and nobody protested so people that are protesting are creating unnecessary controversy
Tiger80 Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 Look what type of people are defending Aurangzeb https://twitter.com/MrAdnanRashid/status/637599739781976064 He calls himself Historian but is confusing Guru tegh bahadur with Banda bahadur moreover he is calling 9 th sikh guru a looter. In other words I am muslim and I am free to insult prophets and guru's of other religion but if anybody say bad about aurangzeb ( forget about moahammed as he will chop his head) then he is right wing nutcase
The Outsider Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Read carefull what I said ,Dawood have to do something extraordinary good like like eliminating terror network of world by telling information about them if he had and in return he may be pardoned , Asoka in history did something exceptional which never any expansionist king did and that is giving up arms, that's why his story became famous Yes, what Ashoka did was exceptional and is thus rightfully acknowledged as a great emperor and even given the honor of being represented on the national flag. Aurangzeb did not do anything like that and is not honored or glorified in any way. At the risk of repeating myself, Indian Muslims don't even name their children as Aurangzeb even though it's a legitimate Persian word, there are no attempts to extol him in anyway. He was a powerful king of his times and suffered with similar pitfalls as many others, and had the power to act on them in a more brutal manner than others. And Britishers did name many places like connaught place which are still known by it and govt did change their name and nobody protested so people that are protesting are creating unnecessary controversy Two things: 1. The percentage of British in India is minuscule to have any kind of a protest. 2. Things like Connaught Place and Victoria Terminal were named by the British to glorify their own people. In this case, Aurangzeb or any Mughal did not name the road to glorify Aurangzeb. The British named it and did so, not to glorify Aurangzeb but as a neutral acknowledgment of him being one of India's biggest kings. The British had zero reason to glorify any Mughal including Aurangzeb. In fact, they tried to locate and jail all Mughal progeny.
maniac Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I can't answer for a big deal being made out of it, but can speak only for myself and I was not in favor of renaming of VT either, nor Bombay etc. my view is that if names change organically that is fine but forcing a change shouldn't be done. About the Kalinga war, it is one of the better documented events from that era by Ashoka himself. There are clear mentions of villages being razed and plundered and deportations. How is that not ethnic cleansing? I don't see any honoring of Aurangzeb. The name was given by the British who were by no means friendly with the Mughals in a certain historical context referring to past rulers of India regardless of their benevolence. I can't see any reason why British would want to honor Aurangzeb. After independence I can't recall any honoring of Aurangzeb. In fact, Indian Muslims purposely avoid naming their children as Aurangzeb in general. What this event has triggered is some MLA actually honoring Aurangzeb by naming a road after him in retaliation because a section of Muslims now see this as an attempt to marginalize their history. Kalinga war is pretty well documented by Ashoka himself with accounts of villages being plundered and mass deportations. Your point about Dawood is facetious because if he is captured he will be jailed and hanged. As I wrote above there are no attempts made to glorify Aurangzeb. This road was named by the British. By needlessly raking up the issue, the effect has been that of glorification by a certain section because they see it as an attempt to erase Islamic history. Again, as I stated above it will be very rare to find Indian Muslims naming their child as Aurangzeb or Taimur for example. In no modern dialogue by Muslims in India is Aurangzeb hinted as being some benevolent monarch. But by deliberately erasing a name whose premise is historical rather than glorification conveys the impression of erasing history to suit parochial agendas. You are using a guy who lived 300 years before Christ as a benchmark to justify Aurangazeb a most polarizing figure figure in modern history??? :cantstop: I am sure we can pick a lot of stuff from back then ( b.c)to justify a lot of actions considered unethical now. It's very simple....Aurangazeb as per modern historians stood for a lot of things against secularism.....I am sure there is a lot of political rationale behind what hitler did as well.. So either things are British propaganda or RSS propaganda? You are just picking 2 extreme ends of the spectrum to prove your point. So there are theories about Tajmal and a lot of other things which are classified as plain conspiracy bs because British saw them with a certain view, so when that is pretty much accepted why suddenly when it comes to Aurangazeb do you think it's a British conspiracy to malign a frickin tyrant. I can bet real money right now that you will be the first one to ridicule things like the Taj Mahal and other theories in a heartbeat but for some reason Aurangazeb is victimized by the British :haha: I am confused...what do you consider a neutral ground between leftist and right wing theories???
seedhi Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Don't see why this renaming is causing so much heartburn. Recently, President Obama renamed Mount McKinley in Alaska to Mount Denali, while legislators in Ohio were against the renaming. Incidentally, McKinley in a former president of the USA. As far as the renaming of Aurangzeb road, wasn't it Kejriwal who congratulated Delhiites on the renaming? Surely he is not associated with the BJP and RSS. The renaming on the face of it has the approval of AAP and BJP which together command 70/70 seats in the Delhi Assembly and 7/7 Lok Sabha seats from Delhi. Evidently, the renaming enjoys overwhelming majority of popular support in Delhi.
seedhi Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Why I danced when I found out Delhi's Aurangzeb Road was being renamed after APJ Abdul Kalam By Tarek Fatah In March, at a lecture in Delhi, I challenged India’s Muslims to stand up and reject the Islamic State and instead start living in a state of Islam; the pursuit of truth above everything else. And to start that journey I suggested they should demand that the Indian and Delhi governments change the name of the city’s Aurangzeb Road, named after the murderous Mughal Emperor to the pious and poet prince Dara Shikoh who was beheaded by Aurangzeb. As an Indian Muslim born in Pakistan, I first visited India in 2013 and was shocked to see the name Aurangzeb adorn one of the most majestic streets of India’s capital. Here was a man who had killed his elder brother to stage a palace coup, who had his own father imprisoned for life and had several Islamic leaders of India hanged to death, among them the spiritual head of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslims of Gujarat. As emperor, Aurangzeb banned music, dance and the consumption of alcohol in the Mughal Empire. In Sindh and Punjab where many Muslims attended discourses by Hindu Brahmins, he ordered the demolition of all schools and the temples where such interaction took place, making it punishable for Muslims who dressed like non-Muslims. But nothing is more of a testimony to the cruelty and bigotry of Aurangzeb than the executions of the Muslim Sufi mystic Sarmad Kashani and the ninth Sikh Guru, Tegh Bahadur. He considered the majority Hindus of his realm as ‘Kufaar’ and placed them as second class to Muslims, waged jihad against Shia Muslim rulers and wiped out all traces of the liberal, pluralistic and tolerant Islam introduced by his great-grandfather Emperor Akbar. Aurangzeb today would be the equivalent of Caliph El-Baghdadi of the Islamic State (ISIS), if not Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Yet, most Indian Muslims are either not aware of Aurangzeb’s crimes or choose to relish the thought that he was the one true king who ruled India in the name of Islam with an iron fist and put Hindus and Sikhs in their rightful place—at the bottom of the heap. So I told the Muslims in my audience that if they truly wanted to fight ISIS, they should take the lead in demanding the erasing of a murderer’s name and replace it with his brother who is loved by all as the epitome of Hindu-Muslim brotherhood. Then came news of the death of India’s most loved president, the Muslim from the country’s deep south who lived in a state of Islam, not the Islamic State, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam. On 29 June, I took to Twitter and urged Indians to ask their governments to change the name from Aurangzeb to APJ Abdul Kalam Road. The idea caught on like wildfire on social media and soon Lok Sabha member from Delhi, Maheish Girri, wrote to Prime Minister Modi to help change the name. Yesterday, I was woken by phone calls from friends in India with the news that the Delhi government had decided to change the name of Aurangzeb Road to APJ Abdul Kalam Road. It was 3 am in Toronto and I for a moment thought I must be dreaming, but I was awake so I woke up my wife to share the news. She shrugged me off, “Buddah pagal ho gaya hai kyaa?’’ But as best as I could do, I did a mix of the lungi dance and bhangra. I couldn’t believe we had pulled it off. (I am now hoping unashamedly that someone in his kindness will invite me to be in Delhi when the formal change in name takes place.) The change of name, be it a human being or a place carries huge significance. At times such a change is a sign of subservience and servitude to a new master, while at other times it is one of overthrowing the bondage of a former dictator. Thus Malcolm X dropped his last name and took on X to reject the family name given to him by some past White slave-owner. In the same vein, Stalingrad was renamed Volgograd as a rebuke to the horrors inflicted on the Russian people by Stalin. In the country of my birth, Pakistan, many names that reminded us of the British Raj were changed. Thus ‘Victoria Road’ and ‘Elphinstone Street’ in Karachi took on names to reflect the new reality of a supposedly independent country. But not all name changes are an act of correcting wrong. I was born on a quiet street in Karachi, Pakistan, in 1949 on what was once known as ‘Lala Lajpat Rai Road’, named after the Punjabi author, politician and one of the leaders of the Indian Independence movement. Lalaji, who died in 1928 after suffering blows to his head in a clash with the police in Lahore, needs no introduction in India. But in the land where he gave his life, hardly anyone knows him, let alone honours him for his service and sacrifice. His crime? He was Hindu. Therefore, his name needed to be erased from the newly created Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the so-called 'Land of the Pure.' Even as a child I could not understand why ‘Guru Mandir’ the neighbourhood where I was born had to undergo a name change and become ‘Sabeel Wali Masjid’. Already some Islamists inside India are condemning the change in name. They will argue that if changing the name of Lala Lajpat Rai Road in Pakistan is wrong then the same principle should be applied to Aurangzeb Road. Wrong. Lala Lajpat Rai was a symbol of India’s fight for freedom while Aurangzeb is a symbol of India’s subjugation and the imposition of an Arabized culture of radical Islam on a land that savours pluralism and secularism. Jai Hind! http://www.firstpost.com/living/why-i-danced-when-i-found-out-delhis-aurangzeb-road-was-being-renamed-after-dr-apj-abdul-kalam-2414280.html
seedhi Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 The so called liberals throwing a hissy fit in India on the renaming are like the conservatives in the USA who shed copious amounts of tears when the Confederate flag was brought down in South Carolina. .... LIMBAUGH: It's not going to stop with the Confederate flag, because it's not about the Confederate flag. It is about destroying the South as a political force. It's about isolating, targeting, and identifying the South as Dylan Roof. ... http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/23/is-the-american-flag-next-conservative-media-fr/204113 Replace "Confederate flag" with "Aurangzeb Road" and "South" with "muslims" and it sounds exactly like the rant of the so-called liberals in India. Indian faux liberal rant: t's not going to stop with the Aurangzeb Road, because it's not about the Aurangzeb Road. It is about destroying the muslims as a political force. It's about isolating, targeting, and identifying the muslims as Aurangzeb.
seedhi Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Some examples of places names after famous racists of the past being renamed in the USA. Memphis changes names of 3 Confederate-themed parks The Memphis city council has hurriedly renamed three Confederate-themed parks, including one named after the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, to head off an effort by some state legislators to block such name changes. The council on Tuesday passed a resolution to immediately rename Confederate Park and Jefferson Davis Park in downtown Memphis and Nathan Bedford Forrest Park, which lies just a few miles away. The vote was 9-0 with three members abstaining. The resolution changes the name of Confederate Park to Memphis Park; Jefferson Davis Park to Mississippi River Park; and Nathan Bedford Forrest Park to Health Sciences Park. Forrest, a Confederate general and cavalry leader, was a slave trader before the war and the KKK's first Grand Wizard. He also is accused of massacring dozens of black Union soldiers who tried to surrender at the battle at Fort Pillow in 1864. Davis was president of the confederacy. ....... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/06/memphis-parks-confederate-ku-klux-klan/1895549/ High school named after KKK 'grand wizard' to be renamed A Florida high school named after a founding member of the Ku Klux Klan is getting a new name after a campaign to change it went viral. The Duval County Public School Board voted unanimously Monday to rename Nathan B. Forrest High School in Jacksonville. ........... http://news.yahoo.com/kkk-grand-wizard-nb-forrest-high-school-163419815.html
Book_Worm Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Aurangzeb was a despot and the road was named by the british and we got our independence in 1947. That' s all clear. What 's not clear is from 1947 to 2015 the locals hindus and sikhs who worked in that area never protested against the name aurangzeb !!WHY?? They don't have a problem with it never did.. The muslims who are protesting against it are not doing it because they think aurangeb was good and just but because they are feeling the heat cornered they feel that country's muslim heritage is being erased replaced by Hindu., Yes i know the name is being replace by another muslim kalam but how long before some other muslim named road is replaced by hindu name. Kalam would be more happy if there was harmony between hindus and muslims rather than them fighting over this road using his name.
Raghav_12 Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 So did the British, I don't see a big deal being made when Victoria terminus was renamed....Infact British have a lot more reasons to be aggravated as they built the damn thing. There were causalities of war under Asoka and Alexander and causalities of war under Hitler and Mussolini.....Is it the same thing? The difference being there was no Ethinic cleansing or religious bigotry.....India is a secular country and a guy who is a polarizing figure on that aspect,should not be honored,simple as that....Read my previous response to you...as I said no one is protesting on roads named after Akbar and other "secular" kings. Key difference is there are no britishers in Indian to feel aggrieved . You can not equate Briitishers with Mughals. Britshers came here from Britain and siphonned off money from India and went back. Mughal emperor born here, brought up here and died here. Not to say that Mughals did better things or worse things (than britishers) during their lifetime as that is not the point. You can claim they were bad but definitely not outsiders. Nadirshah, Abdali, Mohammed Ghouri, Mahmood Ghazani are outsiders who came here just for plundering and persecution. I would have felt much different if name of the road was Nadirshah or Ghouri road. Though I am not much outraged about this renaming and I may have supported the move under some other circumstances. Aurangzeb would count as one of the worst rulers India ever had and direct testimony of that is immediate downfall of Mughal empire after his death. However at this point this move is unnecssary and is deliberate attempt by this govt to keep controversies along the religious lines burning. It is a sign of encouragement to right wing extremists who busy celebrating murder of Kalburgi that govt is right behind you. Messaging is much beyond just renaming. It is about establishing an Hindu identity of india and then asking other religions to respect that entity or be branded as traitors.
Raghav_12 Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Aurangzeb was a despot and the road was named by the british and we got our independence in 1947. That' s all clear. What 's not clear is from 1947 to 2015 the locals hindus and sikhs who worked in that area never protested against the name aurangzeb !!WHY?? They don't have a problem with it never did.. The muslims who are protesting against it are not doing it because they think aurangeb was good and just but because they are feeling the heat cornered they feel that country's muslim heritage is being erased replaced by Hindu., Yes i know the name is being replace by another muslim kalam but how long before some other muslim named road is replaced by hindu name. Kalam would be more happy if there was harmony between hindus and muslims rather than them fighting over this road using his name. Yes.. Good perspective. Whole idea behind this government move was to bring religion in mundane discussions of naming of roads and making religion more prominent in public sphere and they have succeeded in doing exactly same.
mishra Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Internet is full of both the versions and if you looking for conclusive evidences on internet you wouldn't find any. The examples you gave in your post may not have any veracity as these stories have long been part of RSS's propoganda campaign and have heard enough in my childhood. Difficult to believe what is available there. All Indian history books are full of praise of Marathas. You would be made to believe that they are best thing to happen to India since Ram rajya. I was hugely influenced by Marathas history, partially as a result of attempts of indoctrination by RSS surroundings. However some of things that indian history books never told about marathas. 1. Great Shivaji's son, Sambhaji got Shivaji's wife (own step mother) killed in war of succession with own brother Rajaram. 2. There are lot of stories of Maratha's brutalities on other contemporaries Indian emperors particularly Rajputs. There is book written by some Kalyan Thakur with title of Maratha's genocide of Rajputs which mentions some of the credible sources to highlight sad incidents of exploitation and plundering that Maratha's carried out on Rajputs, partially to punish Rajputs of their alignment with Mughals, From this book reading this, me a rajput should develop hatred of marathas? I don't think so. Also, this text seems to me a very exaggerated version of facts and not very credibel. History is best left with as history. There is no need to assign too much pride or zingoism around that. It is futile to assess kings and queens of that time from today's prism. These are used as gimmicks by politicians or leaders to get common man behind them. OK, My source wasnt any Indian author or Indian book but Brits who too didnt gave a damn about what happened to Indian custom and culture. So you can completely take RSS angle out of it. No one gives a damn for family feuds in war of succession to throne. Lets not be naive to realities of the time of rise of Marathas. There were no independent Rajput kingdom. It was Mughal kingdom and Rajput girls were in their harem. Shivaji was one of the first Indian to use imported Mughal war ethics of deciet and brutality. It was too late and far too soft. You need to read how In Europe, Spanish and rest of Europeans dealt with Arabian attackers when they drove them away. That would have been befitting one.
mishra Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 ^ Congress has re written history based on their convenience. You want to search pride in something when there is none. More we dig into it more we will find that its a matter of shame. I will rather give 2 minutes to think about all those little Indians girls of war booty who were raped killed or taken as war brides instead of spending my energy on how to best rememeber the killers so that it helps Congress agenda.
mishra Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Key difference is there are no britishers in Indian to feel aggrieved . Loads of Anglo Indian live in Indian cities. Why do you think Muslims will be agrieved? Onc people know the truth, they may think themselves, more as Indians then Arab. Just like the Bongs who realised that they wetrent Pakis/arabs
Tiger80 Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 Yes, what Ashoka did was exceptional and is thus rightfully acknowledged as a great emperor and even given the honor of being represented on the national flag. Aurangzeb did not do anything like that and is not honored or glorified in any way. At the risk of repeating myself, Indian Muslims don't even name their children as Aurangzeb even though it's a legitimate Persian word, there are no attempts to extol him in anyway. He was a powerful king of his times and suffered with similar pitfalls as many others, and had the power to act on them in a more brutal manner than others. Two things: 1. The percentage of British in India is minuscule to have any kind of a protest. 2. Things like Connaught Place and Victoria Terminal were named by the British to glorify their own people. In this case, Aurangzeb or any Mughal did not name the road to glorify Aurangzeb. The British named it and did so, not to glorify Aurangzeb but as a neutral acknowledgment of him being one of India's biggest kings. The British had zero reason to glorify any Mughal including Aurangzeb. In fact, they tried to locate and jail all Mughal progeny. 3 points 1) Muslims don't even name Shah jahan, humayon , jahangir as their children name, they don't even name Dara shikoh so muslims not naming their children Aurangzeb does not mean they don't consider him good king 2) At the time of Britishers there two major political forces Congress and muslim league. Muslim league created Pakistan and they do like Aurangzeb. Britishers had to maintain balance between naming roads on Hindu/ sikh kings and Muslim kings O/W one side blame Britishers of being pro to other. Now assuming Muslim league supporters are not in India and muslims in India are secular so they should not support Aurangzeb 3)If a road is being named after general dyer I am assuming you don't have problem with it as General Dyer to justified his actions according to orders given to him
Raghav_12 Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Loads of Anglo Indian live in Indian cities. Why do you think Muslims will be agrieved? Onc people know the truth, they may think themselves, more as Indians then Arab. Just like the Bongs who realised that they wetrent Pakis/arabs would have helped if you had tried to quantify that "Loads"..always remember armyman's advice..
coffee_rules Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Yes.. Good perspective. Whole idea behind this government move was to bring religion in mundane discussions of naming of roads and making religion more prominent in public sphere and they have succeeded in doing exactly same. Delhi Government is responsible for naming roads in Delhi.
mishra Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 would have helped if you had tried to quantify that "Loads"..always remember armyman's advice.. If it isnt votebank politics you will understand what loads means. Even a single family would be good enough to qualify the criteria. What you are arguing upon is to fabricate history, bring down other periods, rules and rulers from Indian history, Celebrate life of a tyrant, just on pretext that it may hurt feeling of certain section of society when evidence suggest it wont. It will only make people make more informed choices. Since Alexander knocked on borders of India, Likes of Ambi and Porus has been living in every age. So do their subjects/supporters. Only difference is, In past Ambhis men had no choice, In present subjects believe in Ambhi. Root cause to why they believe in Ambhi is because of the paragraph just above.
BeautifulGame Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 3 points 1) Muslims don't even name Shah jahan, humayon , jahangir as their children name, they don't even name Dara shikoh so muslims not naming their children Aurangzeb does not mean they don't consider him good king Plenty name their children Shajahan .
Recommended Posts