Talk:Aurangzeb/Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Muslim Bias in this article

What is this about Aurangzeb being tolerant, why are you automatically throwing away YEARS of records and history books, some of which even show that Aurangzeb had QUOTAS of killing Hindus! I am a pious Hindu and I believe in tolerance, but this is insane. At least put that this "tolerance" is only a theory that is not accepted by any credible historian. Also, include that Aurangzeb had quotas of killing Hindus each days. This is recorded by some Mughal historians. Revisionists should not change this article to their own whims. Wikipedia is fair, and to present a fair image of Aurangzeb, you need to include that he is one of the most terrible rulers in history, an image RECORDED in the Mughal histories itself. Thank you.

Pure hogwash. Aurangzeb was one of the greatest and most pious Muslim rulers of India. There has been a concerted effort by Hindu rightwingers to malign and tarnish his name.

Stupid Mistake

One of Aurangzeb's wives is mentioned as being Rabia Durrani. Durrani is a title that Afghan founder king Ahmad Shah Abdali fashioned and gave himself and his Abdali tribe in 1747 when he founded the "modern" Afghan state. This was forty years after Aurangzeb died.

More horrendous

More abominable and inhuman crimes were committed by Muslim sultans of south India than those who ruled Delhi. Bahmani, Bijapur & Golkonda sultans were responsible for large scale massacres of Hindus for more than four centuries.

A lot of talk on this man's atrocities and crimes. Hardly surprising. You wouldnt talk about the charities Vlad the Impaler was involved with!!!

Point 1: The bloggers on this discussion page are yet to provide proof regarding the casualty figures AND the accusations. Answer: Perhaps you can be more specific about the disputed figure or fact. Point 2: You cannot tell someone to "go and read xyz" if you are stating something then the onus is on YOU to prove it. Answer: The XYX was probably meant as a reference. I dont see any harm there. Point 3: Did Aurangzeb do anything the other hindu and sikh rulers and politicians didn't try to do with their own relative scales of power? Answer: Yes, no Hindu or Sikh ruler has ever forced conversions.

Can you people please sign your posts. 86.143.3.191 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Longest and Largest Holocaust in Human History

Beginning with the raids by Ghaznavi and Ghauri till the eclipse of Mughal empire India was subjected to the longest and largest holocaust of human history in which crores and crores (hundreds of millions) of Hindus were massacred. It was not only the soldiers of the armies trying to protect their homeland but innocent unarmed Brahmins, women, childern and people belonging to backward and Dalit communities who were not used to do warfare because of the unfortunate caste system of Hinduism. Millions were forcibly converted. The progeny of such people now defend what the aliens perpetrated on a country known for its isolationist existence, not even thinking of going beyond river Sindhu to conquer foreign lands.

This is insane. You cannot compare a rationally thought, mechanically made Genocide which happend within a few years with conflicts that lastet several hundred years. Furthermore you put together various conflicts which had nothing in common whatsoever. History is bloody no matter where on this world, and most times it DOESN'T have anything to do with different religions. Hindus slaughtered other hindus as well as muslims fought muslims. Please read serious history books before you start commenting historical Wikipedia pages. Emma Goldmann1940 2.2.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma Goldmann1940 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If Muslims, who were excellent warriors and administrators, wanted to anhilate Hindus and Hinduism, they would have done it in the 1000 years they ruled India. There wouldn't have been a single Hindu temple, monument or Hindu left in India today. So stop this nonsensical talk of Muslim barbarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.63.146 (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hindu vs Muslim

Ultimately this is what it comes down to. Muslims look up to people like this. Its part of their culture. Almost every single on of their heros is and was a warlord, a conqueror, or a man whos career was (or is) based on some form of violence. This can even be seen with Muslim countries to day in which support for Osoma bin laden is extremely high. Even the famed Salahadin was a conqueror and a fighter.

Hindus, on the other hand, have heros that are non violent, philosophers, and intellectuals.

The cultures are completely different. One glorifies violence and another glorifies intellect. The Muslims will always try to spin Aurangzeb as some noble saint that justly ruled over Hindus in their own homeland, and the Hindus will spin the oppossite.

Hence, Wikipedia cannot be trusted when it comes to people such as these. Everyone must go and read the primary and historical texts, and the truth will be clear:

Aurangzeb was a schizophrenic tyrant who had some periods of tolerance but overwhelmingly was iconoclastic and intolerant, and used his beliefs in Islam as a vehicle to carry out his dellussions.

The answer to the above paragraph preceding mine is no. Muslims will trump on the evils of the Brahmins and all kinds of other garbage, but the fact remains that the iconoclastic Muslim invaders were far more brutal and inhumane than any Brahmin.

It is speculated that over 2000 temples were destroyed or converted by Muslims. On the flipside, there is only evidence throughout 4000 years of history in which a dozen or so Hindus destroyed each others temples.

Oh yeah, but what about the 1000s of Buddist temples Hindus destroyed in their zeal to reconvert the country back to Hinduism after Ashoka's experimentation with Buddhist philosophy? Ever wonder why India, the cradle of Buddhism, hardly has any Buddhists? Before you point a finger at Muslims, take stock of your own bloody past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.63.146 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Timur, another staunch Muslim, massacred 100,000 Hindus in Delhi. Brahmins, Sikhs, or INDIAN rulers (not foreign Muslims) did no such thing at any given point at any time. No where near it.

Your comments seem to be really offensive and attack-like. Also, talk pages are for improving Wikipedia articles and not just for stating one's own views. Thank you. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am intrigued by these comments. Hindus looking up to all non-violent scholars and intellectuals? If that's true, then what do you call men like Shivaji, Prithvirai Chauhan, etc? They may not have been bad mongrels like Aurangze but they certainly werent non-violent. They were warriors to the T and used violence freely to achieve their ends. Also, we Muslims dont look upon all bad war-mongerers for heros. Apart from the Prophet, South Asian Muslims look upon Akbar, Tipu Sultan, Shah Jahan, Shah Abdul Latif, Mirza Ghalib, Chishti saints, all the major Muslim pirs, Amir Khusro and many more as heros and role models. Dont make random stereotypes as to who we respect and dont respect etc. Afghan Historian 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Previous comments

Auranzeb was a murderer who killed hundreds of thousands of Hindus and destroyed thousands of temples during his reign. I no longer have any faith in wikipedia because it is so easy for history to be manipulated and edited on this website, the actual factual evidence in any historical subject becomes misconstrued. This article also fails to mention that time beginning with the Muslim invasions of India in the 12th century up until the death of Aurangzeb and some years afterwards is known as the largest holocaust in history. An estimated 100 million Hindus were murdered by Muslim invaders over a period of 3-4 centuries, not to mention the millions who were forcibly converted. History is history, and Indian Muslims have a responsibility to the entire nation to portray the history of Muslim rulers in India in the correct light. To change history is to change one's reality, which cannot be allowed to happen.

This article also fails to mention the fact that it was not just the Marathas, but also the Sikhs in northern India who had consistently fought the Mughal empire for a longer period of time. The Sikh struggle with the Mughals originated much before any armed resistance from the Marathis and had it not been for the exploits of Guru Gobind Singh and the earlier Gurus, northern India would have presumably been under Muslim control for a much longer period of time after Aurangzeb. It was the Sikhs who saved the lives of millions of Hindus and it was the Sikhs who defended all Indians against Mughal tyranny and opression.- Pervez Ashraf 6/22/05

I agree with you in to-to when you say that you have lost your faith in Wikipedia.Everything that goes on in Wikipedia is contributed by the users. Sometimes the Wikipedia editors show lack of understanding oh history.For example,Sambhaji lead the battle against Aurangzeb for 8 years,without letting Aurangzeb win a single significant battle.When Sambhaji was captured,Aurangzeb paraded him in order to humuliate him.Details of that parade can be found in history books written by Grand Duff or other famous historians.However the editor removed the details of the parade by labeling it 'Too much dramatism and too little content'.Now what to say about it?

I think something like "Sambhaji lead the battle against Aurangzeb for 8 years,without letting Aurangzeb win a single significant battle.When Sambhaji was captured,Aurangzeb paraded him in order to humuliate him" (which you have mentioned in your comment above) is historically relevant and adds to the value of the article. On the other hand, details like how he was mutilated etc. don't really add anything except sensationalism. That's my opinion. We can discuss it here (along with perhaps some of the more experienced editors - I'm not an old timer here) and come to a conclusion. I also think much of the editing which I removed with that comment was mildly POV. Terms like "brave and noble king of hindus had no intention of..." could be replaced by something less dramatic like "He refused...". I have my own biasses (like almost everyone else) but in the spirit of maintaining an encyclopaedic style of writing, I think language extolling historical figures should be curbed atleast a little. If you think the content you posted was really contributing to the informational value of the article, please post about it and let's come to a conclusion.

As for losing faith in wikipedia, I don't agree with many of the articles. I know many details to be wrong and try to fix them only to have them reverted. Even with that, it's a useful non authoritative reference for many topics (especially non controversial ones). --Nkv 10:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Still you have removed the mention of Sambhaji's parade.It should be noted that Aurangzeb spent last 25 years of his life in the Deccan trying to defeat the Marathas but could not do so.During that period,common people of Maharashtra participated in the battles along with the Maratha soldiers and commanders,in order to save the kingdom.We would find few other examples in Indian history wherein common people fought tooth and nail to save the kingdom.So doesn't it deserve greater emphasis in the article?

(I'm reformatting your comment a little to reply to sections). Perhaps in an article on the Maratha resistance and the wars they fought. Not in an article that's dealing with one of the Mughal Emperors. Details of wars and conflicts have whole articles devoted to them. Don't you think it's more accurate to mention their details there? The current article is already over the recommended size. --Nkv 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote about the legacy of Aurangzeb,I mentioned that he symbolized the religious intolerance and fanatism ,which was totally inconsistent with the ethos of Indian culture.We know that and it is also mentioned in the article by other authors that Aurangzeb killed his own brothers and imprisoned his own father and ascended the throne.This has been the culture of Khiljis, Tughlaks and Mughals because their kings ascended the throne under similar circumstances.Indian culture stands for Ram who gave up his throne so that he could fulfill the promise given by his father and King Harishchandra who gave up his kingdom so that he could fulfill his promise given in dream.

I'm not a historian so I don't know about the accuracy of your statements about the Khiljis etc. However, A statement like "Indian culture stands for Ram..." sounds like you're backing up your arguments with religion. That's not a very convinving argument.

Aurangzeb brutally killed Guru Teg Bahadur and Sambhaji.He destroyed many Hindu temples and also imposed Jizia on Hindus.

There are sections in the current article that mention all three of these events. I think they're fairly accurate too. --Nkv 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well those Gurus asked for it when the created their own cultist religion and challenged Aurangzeb's rule. What do you expect him to do, bend over and fart the Granth Sahib? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.63.146 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it not inconsistent with ethos of Indian culture?

Every "culture" has brutalities associated with it's past. A statement like "His actions were inconsistent with the ethos of Indian culture" doesn't add any value to the article since "Indian culture" is not something that's objectively defined.--Nkv 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

When we think of Hitler,we invariably think of Holocaust and concentration camps like the one at Auschwitz.This doesn't mean that Hitler did not have any virtues.But his virtues were overshadowed with blots like Holocaust.Similar was the case with Aurangzeb.His virtues like bravery,frugal and pious life were overshadowed with all the things mentioned earlier.

A question of vices "overshadowing" vices is a moral one and not one to be discussed or mentioned on an encyclopaedia. Without bringing my own opinions into this, I'll simply say that Aurangzeb's "vices" and "virtues" should simply be recorded as fact without passing any judgmenents on them in the article. Something like, 'he did so many *bad* things so we can ignore all the good *that* he did' or vice versa is not factual reporting.--Nkv 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as any article written on legacy of Hitler would be incomplete if we don't mention Holocaust,any article written on legacy of Aurangzeb is incomplete without the mention of his extreme religious intolerance and cruelty.The editor allowed mention like 'Aurangzeb's personal piety is undeniable. He led an extremely simple and pious life. ' but not of his religious intolerance and cruelty,it cannot be considered completely unbiased article.

Both the things. His intolerance is mentioned. He backed up his faith with action, abandoning the religious tolerance of his predecessors. During his reign many Hindu temples were defaced and destroyed, and many Indians converted to Islam.. Also, the details of his military campaigns are mentioned too (albeit without the dramatisation you seem to insist on).--Nkv 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm Muslim and I hear a lot of things from co religionists about how great Aurangzeb was as I hear a lot things from some of my Hindu friends about how brutal he was. I'm not interested in their opinions. I'm interested in stating what he did as neutrally as possible. That's not going to be totally possible considering that Aurangzeb *is* a controversial character. Also, my own biasses will probably affect my editing. Which is why I'm calling for a discussion.--Nkv 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer to the above paragraph preceding mine is no. Muslims will trump on the evils of the Brahmins and all kinds of other garbage, but the fact remains that the iconoclastic Muslim invaders were far more brutal and inhumane than any Brahmin.

It is speculated that over 2000 temples were destroyed or converted by Muslims. On the flipside, there is only evidence throughout 4000 years of history in which a dozen or so Hindus destroyed each others temples.

Timur, another staunch Muslim, massacred 100,000 Hindus in Delhi. Brahmins, Sikhs, or INDIAN rulers (not foreign Muslims) did no such thing at any given point at any time. No where near it.

Tolerance—or the lack thereof

Auranzeb was a murderer who killed hundreds of thousands of Hindus and destroyed thousands of temples during his reign. I no longer have any faith in wikipedia because it is so easy for history to be manipulated and edited on this website, the actual factual evidence in any historical subject becomes misconstrued. This article also fails to mention that time beginning with the Muslim invasions of India in the 12th century up until the death of Aurangzeb and some years afterwards is known as the largest holocaust in history. An estimated 100 million Hindus were murdered by Muslim invaders over a period of 3-4 centuries, not to mention the millions who were forcibly converted. History is history, and Indian Muslims have a responsibility to the entire nation to portray the history of Muslim rulers in India in the correct light. To change history is to change one's reality, which cannot be allowed to happen. This article also fails to mention the fact that it was not just the Marathas, but also the Sikhs in northern India who had consistently fought the Mughal empire for a longer period of time. The Sikh struggle with the Mughals originated much before any armed resistance from the Marathis and had it not been for the exploits of Guru Gobind Singh and the earlier Gurus, northern India would have presumably been under Muslim control for a much longer period of time after Aurangzeb. It was the Sikhs who saved the lives of millions of Hindus and it was the Sikhs who defended all Indians against Mughal tyranny and opression.- Pervez Ashraf 6/22/05

The following sentence:

His intolerance of other religious views led him to threaten violence against Shia Muslims, for not renouncing their religious beliefs and declaring themselves heretical.

Isn't this just a POV? Also, the Shia declared themselves heretical"? Is that a typo?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:31, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how it is (—or is not) POV? Could you explain why you think it is POV? And about Shia declaring themselves heretical again I don't see why it is a typo? Aurangzeb wanted Shia Muslims to accept that they were committing heresy — makes sense to me. -Ankur 04:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first part of their sentence has a cause-and-effect sequence that is a conclusion drawn by the writer, no? Unless one can quote Aurangzeb himself saying that that was why he was doing what he does. No?

At first I was mis-reading the second half of the sentence. But a couple of problem remain: the Shias could either renounce their beliefs or declare themselves heretical; they couldn't do both, no? And again, I would like to see more documentation on his actual treatment of the Shia.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

So would I :-), But you are not of the view that Auranhgzeb was acutally a good person — or are you? Lets just hope that you believe that Aurangzeb was horribly misrepresented - tho he did not leave scope for it. On a serious note, give me an hour or half, I'll read some history books and let you know what I can find. -Ankur 05:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I did some reading and found a little evidence about his dislike for Shias. If you wait till tomorrow I will write down whatever I could find. Gota go to bed now. Bye. -Ankur 07:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have taken longer than I asked for. I've been busy and once I started reading I could not stop. Since I have not finished yet I am not posting anything. Oh another thing - I have not found anything conclusive yet. -Ankur 07:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope I haven't sent you/caused you to go on a wild goose chase. I am not asking for proof that he disliked the Shia. Just that we need to get a little more specific on what he did. Otherwise, it is just a blanket accusation—like the usual practice of taking his destroying (or causing, or allowing the destruction of) temples and, on the basis of that alone, saying that he oppressed Hindus. The situation, in the latter case, was much more complex: the temples destroyed were done in agreement (or collaboration) with some Hindus and reasons (excuses, if you will) were provided. And he had Hindu generals, governors, and allies. Which is not to say that he was sympathetic to Hindus or Hinduism or that he was tolerant. Just that we need to provide a clearer picture.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Well, had I gone in a search of Aurangzeb and his treatment of Shia Muslims - maybe I would have gone on a wild goose chase, but I was in search of truth and such a search is always fruitful (I know it sounds filmi). I did not want to search for anything on the net, coz most if not all material on the net is not verified. I am sure a Google search on the topic would have resulted in a lot of stuff worth mentioning here. I am also sure that most of the stuff that I could have found would have been by fanatics. So I looked for published material only. I based my search only on e-books available through my universities library (did not have the time to get a real book.) Ruefully there was'nt much about Aurangzeb's treatment of Shia Muslims. Almost every book I read clearly paints a negative picture of Aurangzeb but none of those books were specifically about him so there was not enough detail. About treatment of Hindus there seems to be near consensus that he treated Hindus not just unequally but unjustly too. But most of what I could find about treatment of Shia's can only be left to interpretation.

The only book that had any praise for him also had this line (exact words) Historians suggest their Shia fervour roused the orthodox fury of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.--Ahmed, Akbar S. Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society. I might also add that this book goes on to claim that Aurangzeb funded construction of temples. But I have read enough of this book not to trust it (due to its Islamic bias.) The line above that I picked from the book is about Aurangzeb's conquest of the Deccan Muslim Kingdoms. The problem with the line I have used from this book is that the fact that Aurangzeb wanted to avoid the possibility of any alliance in the Deccan against his empire and had to nip the possibility in the bud. So it is not specifically about Shia vs Sunni.

Paraphrasing from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Aurangzeb linked Sunni orthodoxy with the interests of the Mughal Empire. While this does say a bit about his beliefs as a Sunni Muslim. It does not say much about his dislike for Shia (even if it can be interpreted.) I think enough is said (but not in so many words - its concise dictionary after all) to interpret that - well nothing actually :-)

So this ends my wonderful search through several books about History of India and how so may people look at it differently. I have read enough to contribute (time permitting) to the collaboration of the week and I have this recurring feeling that I wont. --Ankur 15:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Oh wait I have to write a conclusion too. It boils down to benefit of doubt and who gets it. The person writing the article or the person about whom the article is. Cricket says benefit of doubt goes to Aurangzeb Sahib. Lets hope whoever wrote that part about Shia heresy comes and explain his edit himself. I hope its not the same guy who wrote the Zafarnama stuff, that was some real POV stuff dude.

Ankur, I have been on wikivacation and just re-read the above thread. I would like to compliment you on actually drawing an objective conclusion from the facts as you found them and, at least the way I saw it, moving a little ways away from your initial assumptions. Kudos! That's the mark of a wise--dare I say good-hearted--person.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like some Muslim re-wrote this to make Aurang. sound more humane than he really was. (Comment left by 69.172.211.222 (talk · contribs)).

This comment is yet another disheartening example of a POV. What does it matter whether the author (whoever s/he was) was Muslim or a Hindu or a Christian or Buddhist? I sincerely hope people would work on a non-religiously-motivated neutral manner, and rise up above religious and national affiliations. I am restoring the line as it did not deny the fact stated, rather it commented on the possibility of many views. Discuss it here if you want, but please leave religion and your nationality out of the picture. Be neutral, please!!!. --Ragib 05:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It commented on "the possibility of many views" in order to please Muslims, especially Pakistanis, who overwhelmingly seem to have this habit of sugarcoating the violent nature of *unwanted* Muslim rulers and invaders that existed in the Indian sub-continent (meaning that Hindus didnt really care for the Arabs, Turks, Afghans, and Persians who invaded and brought with them their "noble Islam").

In-fact, you could put "it is an exaggeration" for much of history or any facet related to any historical character.

It comes down to this: You, as a Muslim, want to make Aurang look like a "keeper and restorer of the Muslim Ummah" in South Asia, and conveniently brush off and disregard his extreme non-Muslim prejiduce. To begin with, these Turks and Mughals really had no business invading India to begin with, secondly, the man was a bloodthirsty tyrant, regardless of any Muslim bias than can be injected.

I suppose your are going to go and sugar-coat Saddam Hussein article? (Note:Comment left by 69.172.211.222 (talk · contribs)).

I really am saddened by your continued religious-minded rhetoric, and I almost wish I did not have to comment on that. It is really your last few comments that surprise me. I hope you'd learn some tolerance, and rise up above religious lines to continue contributing to wikipedia. When I edit or write articles, I really try to think neutrally and not just do-justice or sugar-coat articles. I am also surprised at your extreme views on "people-who-invaded-india" notion. Frankly, take any country, and any ethnic group, you can almost always find some other ethnic group it uprooted and invaded. Taking your example, I could definitely say that the "Aryans have no business invading India to begin with", and India belongs to the Dravidian race who lived here and built great cities like Harappa and Mohenjodaro. That would be just another funny argument, but you can see that the argument you place against Arabs, Turks applies to the Aryans too. In the similar way, it can also be argued that parts of India, at least what is now Bangladesh was Buddhist predominantly, but was converted to hinduism first and then later to Islam. Many of these conversions were voluntary, many were forced. In case of Aurangjeb, there are allegations, much of which may be true, but there are also other versions of history by some historians, which may also have some truth in them, and thats what that one line about "there may be exaggerations" implied. In the end, I would like to emphasize again that it is NOT the task of a neutral editor to go on rewriting articles to state their religious beliefs. Your allegations just prove what is bad with this religious-minded attitude: you get a "tunnel vision" and a monochromatic view of things. I hope you would understand my point here and stop bringing religion into this discussion. This article or wikipedia are not the battlegrounds for hindu-muslim-buddhist or Pakistani-Indian fights. I would love to have a good discussion with anyone to make this article better, but if you keep drawing religious lines, it really wouldn't work well. I have no intention of sugar coating "Saddam Hussein" article to make him look better or worse, just to make my own beliefs stick out. In the same way, I do not have any intention of denigrating any article or any person just because that person was of religion X, Y,Z. Please have the discussion without referring to your or anyone else's religious affiliation. The spirit of wikipedia and cooperation depends on working in a decent manner and respecting other's views while establishing facts. Finally, please sign your comments. Thanks --Ragib 02:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations are false based on some clear and evident points. 1. There was no "Aryan Invasion". The AIT theory has been debunked completely. There is an Aryan Migration theory which scholars now accept, but that is still speculative.

2. The Aryans who migrated into India developed a unique religion and language system that are *unique to India*. Unlike the Arabs, Mughals, and Afghans, they simply didnt enter the sub-continent, loot and plunder it, then leave, all while maintining a seperate and distinct identity. The Aryans assimilated and contributed in which they formed the *basis* of Hindu and Indian culture. The invading Muslims did no such thing.

3. The Dravidian race is not native to India either, and is thought of to have originated from somewhere between Iran and Greece, hence why the elamite languages are linked to the South Indian languages. The Dravidians, like the Aryans, migrated into South Asia and helped form a basis of culture as the group assimilated.

4. You say that Bangladesh was first Buddhist, then Hindu, then Muslim. This makes absolutely no sense due to the fact that Hinduism predates Buddhism by many centuries. So what were the Bangladeshis before they were Buddhist?

Regardless, I agree that religious attitudes should not reflect Wikipedia's articles, but I fail to see this ethos manifested in your editing of this page. I mean, why even bother sugar-coating a Tyrant's history? Why do you feel as though you have make it a point that forced conversions were an exxageration only for a leader who happend to be Muslim?

It is simple, because you are Muslim yourself, and you unconciously feel it as your duty to make these rulers and invaders who brought *you* (more so your descendents) Islam, (for I am sure you are forever gratefull) look as Saintly and legitimate as possible.

signed *insert IP address here* (Note:Comment left by 69.172.211.222 (talk · contribs))

I refuse to submit to the attitude you show here, so I would refrain from commenting on it. Sometimes, it is worthless to argue with people who would continue to see the world in monochromatic way. I just wanted to keep this page out of religious hatred and potential POV, and that's not too hard to keep (See NPOV). I stand by my edit which was merely to revert a single line which I didn't even insert there in the first place, and which you removed after posting a derogatory comment on certain religious beliefs. Also, I have not and will not bring the religion-card here. And my reference to the Aryans coming to south asia was just an example to you on how different people came here in different periods of times. As a Bangladeshi, my ancestry includes all these people, who came here in different periods of time, so I am equally proud to descend from my ancient dravidian/pre-dravidian, aryan, hindu, buddhist and arabic ancestry, which most of the people in Bangladesh share. However, that is NOT what should affect any of my edits here or elsewhere. And once again, can't you be a little more *decent* in commenting here? It doesn't hurt to be respectful of other people, while still being true to your own faith and putting together logical arguments here nicely. I would like to repeat the simple message that "just because I belong to religion X doesn't mean it is my duty to make anyone saintly". I just hope you learn from your experiences and stop bashing/flaming other people just because you don't like their religion. Also, signing your message in wikipedia requires typing out only 4 ~'s, as in ~~~~, so sign your messages with that. Thanks. --Ragib 05:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the argument of tyranny that applies to the Turks and Afghans could also apply to the Aryans for that matter. They may not have "destroyed the Indus cities" but they did certainly destroy descedant cities in the Indus valley and the Gangetic valley. Also, there is no "speculation" about an "Aryan migration". It is a genetic, archaeological and linguistic fact. It may not necessarily have been an "invasion" (that is, it wasnt planned and a mere conquest of territory etc.) but it was a migration and establishment of a new culture in conflict with the old ways of the Dravidians and aborigines. The Caste System can equally be likened to the tyrannical anti-Hindu pogramic rule of the Muslims. However, that's not the point. The point is, this is an encyclopedia. We are simply displaying the facts about his life. And yes, he did destroy Hindu temples and persecute Sikhs and Afghan soldiers, and a variety of other things. But the thing is we talked about that. The article discusses this in great detail. But, likewise, there were a few positive things about the ruler too, and those too must equally be shown. No, we are not going to praise him or degrade him for his actions, we are just going to display what he did as it was. The reader can make his own opinions, but the encyclopedia must not. It must stick to the facts, as Mr Gradgrind once told a school teacher in Hard Times. Afghan Historian 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-wrote the Maratha part

Sayind that His harsh policies led to uprisings in Deccan by the Marathis under rebel Shivaji

This is a POV Deccan was NEVER RULED BY Aurangzeb. It was ruled by Bijapur Kingdom out of which the enslaved Marathas carved out their Homeland in Maharashtra. Moreover Shivaji was NOT a rebel he was a Maratha Price or "Chatrapati" (King under the Umbrella). Marathas fought with Mughals only because Mughals repeatedly attacked Maratha sovereignity. During a truce Aurangzeb had Shivaji invited to Agra & imprisoned trecherously. Comon IFukeer (pun intended) accept the fact that Aurangzeb was an ICONOLATOR. Who told u bout the trash that Hinndus destroyed Hindu temples :-o

atrocities!

More of his actrocities should be mentioned.

Article discusses "harsh treatment of non-Muslims" and so on. And even that doesn't mention specifics. We need specifics, if they can be found.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

How about the fact that he imposed tax on being non-muslim (Jezia). I have added a few more. Hope it helps. 24.126.17.155 06:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to quote Prof. Vinay Lal's page on Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb's Fatwa on Jizya [Jizyah, or Poll Tax]

Much has been made of Aurangzeb's reimposition of the poll tax (jizya, or jizyah) on Hindus. However, as the text of the fatwa, which is seldom read, indicates, an exemption was provided for various classes of people, such as those who were indigent, without employment, unable to work on account of poor health, and so on. Moreover, the fatwa clearly shows that the amount was, far from being uniform, fixed according to a person's ability to pay. The statement that the jizyah was imposed as well on "the people of the Book" -- here doubtless a reference to Christians and Jews -- is particularly significant, since it suggests that there was no animus directed particularly against the Hindus. The translation below is by Anver Emon of the Department of History, UCLA.

Source

Al-Fatawa al-Alamgiriyyah = Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah fi Madhhab al-Imam al-A‘zam Abi Hanifah :al-Nu‘man (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifah, 1973), 2:244-245.

Chapter on Jizyah

[Jizyah] refers to what is taken from the Dhimmis, according to [what is stated in] al-Nihayah. It is obligatory upon [1] the free, [2] adult members of [those] who are generally fought, [3] who are fully in possession of their mental faculties, and [4] gainfully employed, even if [their] profession is not noble, as is [stated in] al-Sarajiyyah. There are two types of [jizyah]. [The first is] the jizyah that is imposed by treaty or consent, such that it is established in accordance with mutual agreement, according to [what is stated in] al-Kafi. [The amount] does not go above or below [the stipulated] amount, as is stated in al-Nahr al-Fa’iq. [The second type] is the jizyah that the leader imposes when he conquers the unbelievers (kuffar), and [whose amount] he imposes upon the populace in accordance with the amount of property [they own], as in al-Kafi. This is an amount that is pre-established, regardless of whether they agree or disagree, consent to it or not.

The wealthy [are obligated to pay] each year forty-eight dirhams [of a specified weight], payable per month at the rate of 4 dirhams. The next, middle group (wast al-hal) [must pay] twenty-four dirhams, payable per month at the rate of 2 dirhams. The employed poor are obligated to pay twelve dirhams, in each month paying only one dirham, as stipulated in Fath al-Qadir, al-Hidayah, and al-Kafi. [The scholars] address the meaning of "gainfully employed", and the correct meaning is that it refers to one who has the capacity to work, even if his profession is not noble. The scholars also address the meaning of wealthy, poor, and the middle group. Al-Shaykh al-Imam Abu Ja‘far, may Allah the most high have mercy on him, considered the custom of each region decisive as to whom the people considered in their land to be poor, of the middle group, or rich. This is as such, and it is the most correct view, as stated in al-Muhit. Al-Karakhi says that the poor person is one who owns two hundred dirhams or less, while the middle group owns more than two hundred and up to ten thousand dirhams, and the wealthy [are those] who own more than ten thousand dirhams...The support for this, according to al-Karakhi is provided by the fatawa of Qadi Khan (d. 592/1196). It is necessary that in the case of the employed person, he must have good health for most of the year, as is stated in al-Hidayah. It is mentioned in al-Idah that if a dhimmi is ill for the entire year such that he cannot work and he is well off, he is not obligated to pay the jizyah, and likewise if he is sick for half of the year or more. If he quits his work while having the capacity [to work] he [is still liable] as one gainfully employed, as is [stated in] al-Nihayah. The jizyah accrues, in our opinion, at the beginning of the year, and it is imposed on the People of the Book (whether they are Arab, non-Arab, or Majians) and idol worshippers (‘abdat al-awthan) from among the non-Arabs, as in al-Kafi...The [jizyah] is not imposed on the idol worshippers from among the Arabs or from among the apostates, where they exist. Their women and children [are considered] as part of a single liability group (fi’). [In other words], whoever from among their men do not submit to Islam shall be killed, and no jizyah is imposed upon their women, children, ill persons or the blind, or likewise on the paraplegic, the very old, or on the unemployed poor, as is stated in al-Hidayah

Thanks. --Ragib 06:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

POV?

I added the NPOV tag because the whole article seems biased and quite one-sided in representing Aurgangzeb. I do believe this needs to be discussed. I am curious why the sole good point mentioned in the article (about abolition of satee) was removed without even any edit summaries, and a whole lot of negative points added. I am adding the NPOV until this issue is discussed thoroughly. Thanks. --Ragib 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

POV?

I added the NPOV tag because the whole article seems biased and quite one-sided in representing Aurgangzeb. I do believe this needs to be discussed. I am curious why the sole good point mentioned in the article (about abolition of satee) was removed without even any edit summaries, and a whole lot of negative points added. I am adding the NPOV until this issue is discussed thoroughly. Thanks. --Ragib 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Auragzeb was exteremely unpopular in India as opposed to Akbar. There is a reason for that. There were not many good things to say about him. Please add if you know any. 24.126.17.155 06:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked, I googled a little bit and picked up some of the following text from [1]. If you want, I can do more googling and add to the list. My point is, Aurganzeb was a religious person and he had his own vision. That may be positive to people of muslim faith, and negative to people of hindu and Shikh faiths. It would not be fair if the article is written with one's own faith in mind. The current article seems to be biased in the sense that it portrays Aurangzeb as an invader and a religious fanatic, and overlooks any other interpretation of the facts. Anyway, here is an excerpt from [2] as I mentioned above:

It can scarcely be doubted, once the historical evidence is weighed, that the religious policies of Aurangzeb were discriminatory towards Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslims. Nonetheless, numerous inferences have been drawn from the literature which are not warranted by the historical record. Though many historians have written of conversions of Hindus, surprisingly little, if any, evidence has been offered to suggest how far the conversion of Hindus took place, and whether there was any official policy beyond one of mere encouragement that led to the conversion of Hindus. Then, as now, conversion would have been more attractive to the vast number of Hindus living under the tyranny of caste oppression, and it isn't clear at all how the kind of inducements that Aurangzeb offered -- if indeed he did so for the purposes of conversion, as Richards maintains -- are substantially different from the inducements that modern, purportedly secular, politicians offer to people in their electoral constituencies. And what of the popular representation of Aurangzeb as a ferocious destroyer of Hindu temples and idols? Hindu temples in the Deccan were seldom destroyed, notwithstanding Aurangzeb's extensive military campaigns in that area. True, in north India, some Hindu temples were undoubtedly torn down, but much work needs to be done to establish the precise circumstances under which these acts of destruction took place. The famed Keshava Rai temple in Mathura was one such temple, but here Aurangzeb seems to have been motivated by a policy of reprisal, since the Jats in the region had risen in revolt. Like his predecessors, Aurangzeb continued to confer land grants (jagirs) upon Hindu temples, such as the Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple in Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Banaras, and Umanand temple in Gauhati, and if one put this down merely to expediency, then why cannot one view the destruction of temples as a matter of expediency as well, rather than as a matter of deliberate state policy? Moreover, recent historical work has shown that the number of Hindus employed as mansabdars, or as senior court officials and provincial administrators, under Aurangzeb's reign rose from 24.5% in the time of his father Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of his own rule. One has the inescapable feeling that then, as now, the word 'fanaticism' comes rather too easily to one's lips to characterize the actions of people acting, or claiming to act, under the name of Islam. It is also notable that as a firm Sunni, Aurangzeb dealt as firmly with the Shia kingdoms of Bijapur and Golconda as he did with the Hindus or Muslims. One can safely assert that Aurangzeb acted to preserve and enhance the interests of his own Muslim community, and restored the privileges of the Sunni ulema, but his actions with respect to the Hindus, Shias, and others are more open to interpretation.. (From Article written by Vinay Lal, Associate Professor of History, UCLA). --Ragib 06:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I do not mention that he converted non-hindus by force, though it is mentioned in numerous biographies of Sambhaji who was offered to convert or to die. I don't think he brought down any Masjids for any reasons, say to tame Adil Shah of Deccan. I don't think there could be any justification apart from his view that he was fighting hindus and not just other kings. Any way it is known to be a fact that he did it and I only mentioned it. Why he did it could be disputed. The article did not call him 'fanatic' either. Although not many would call him tolerant. So why you call the 'entire' article biased is beyond me. 24.126.17.155 06:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Why did you then remove reference to the fact that Aurangzeb banned the practice of Satee? Also what about mentioning his austerity and the facts that he earned his own living by means of sewing caps and creating copies of the Koran, unlike his lavish predecessors? My own view is that a biographical article about X cannot be neutral if it is completely full of negative facts about X. Aurganzeb did destroy many temples. He did impose Jizya (see above). But He also expanded the Mughal empire to the greatest extent, and was a devout follower of Islam. There are also numerous anecdotes of his fair judgement. So, I do not say any of your points are good or bad, I say that under the current presentation of facts, the article is one-sided. --Ragib 06:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I do mention that he banned Hindu practices. I am not sure he banned Sati, which was popular in South India and he never went there. Hindu temples in Deccan were not destoyed because he could not defeat Shivaji, not because he liked temples in Deccan better. He did sew caps, but to say he earned his living by doing that would be bit of a stretch. As to the fair judgement, I don't think there is any evidence of his judgement being any better than those of other kings. In either case, I don't think adding anecdotes to the short article is appropriate and moreover anecdotes do not prove that he had better judgement than others which would be a broad conclusion. The article has lots of facts which show him in negative light does not necessarily mean that it is biased. By the way, the three temples mentioned in the article you quoted were _the_ most important temples to hindus, calling it a matter of expediency or not even mentioning them in Auragzeb's article is totally unfair and biased. 24.126.17.155 07:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Before you get worked up, I am not telling you to remove any of these facts. These should be mentioned in the article, no doubt about that. My point is that only mentioning these facts while overlooking other cast Aurangzeb into the role of the Proverbial (Hindi) cinematic villain, always doing bad things while never doing a good thing or two. A biographical article should have all sides of his character. Only then it can be called neutral. Thanks --Ragib 07:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I am removing POV tag since you failed to mention which facts are POV. I am glad that you think the acts mentioned are villainish. 24.126.17.155 07:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think more discussion is required to make it NPOV. I did not say your presented facts are disputed. I said the article presents a one sided view. My points of non-neutrality claim did not imply the truth in the facts presented, rather that implied the omission of many other facts which would have made it neutral. So, let us continue the discussion. I also want to clarify my words on "Villainish". Please check what I wrote:

only mentioning these facts while overlooking other cast Aurangzeb into the role of the Proverbial (Hindi) cinematic villain, always doing bad things while never doing a good thing or two.

I meant to say that mentioning facts A about person X while omitting fact B would solely make person X look like whatever the fact A implied. Same as the cheap B-rated movies, where the only thing a villain does is go on doing bad thing. I do not pass any judgement on Aurangzeb solely on any particular fact, and have NOT called his acts villainish or whatever. Thanks. --Ragib 08:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why do you think the article is biased against him? You did not dispute the facts. You are repeatedly calling the article biased and one sided. Write down whatever you think the other side is. What are the facts that are omitted here? 24.126.17.155 08:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This is quite unfortunate that 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs) is taking things personally and vandalizing my own user page. Please follow wikipedia etiquette. I may disagree with you but you have the right to express your views. And so do I. My own user page, on the other hand, is a place where I am entitled to express my view. I CAN call my home country beautiful in my user page. You don't HAVE to vandalize it. If you are angry with my views, please discuss it logically here. Please do not act like a petty vandal.

Also, your recent changes are taking quite a religious turn. Now you are terming content as controvertial and marking scholarship as "muslim" etc. That itself is a blatant POV. Please act logically, and have discussion. --Ragib 10:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not call the scholarship muslim. It was already there. It is not something that I introduced. Also please don't make your religious inclinations a factor while discussing validity of the facts. 24.126.17.155

Ragib, please stick to the subject Aurangzeb. Will be reported as Vandalism if continued. King1

Excuse me! The user I mentioned above vandalized my user page, it doen't take too much thinking to find out why a totally unknown person would be encouraged to do so. I'd love to be "sticking to the subject", and discuss it here. That's what I have been doing since 2 days now. And also, since wikipedia keeps logs, it [[3]] is all open for all to see. Thanks. --Ragib 18:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, Just discuss about this on appropriate page thats all.. King1 19:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ragib, You should have pointed out a non muslim source which _considers_ Aurangzeb "in the best traditions of the companions of The Prophet himself and his early successors. The latter group has even gone to extent of using the phrase Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph" to support your argument that it is a 'blatant' POV. King1 17:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I have not added that line. I also wouldn't keep that line, but the point is, Aurangzeb's evaluation should be done in a neutral manner. And we can always go on and discuss the matter here, unlike 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs) who is unilaterally changing things, while discussion is going on. Also, since you say it again, what exactly is a "Muslim" source? Did the world of scholarship and education got divided with religious lines? Thanks. --Ragib 18:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Best seems to remove/replace the first para altogether that is if we agree? Seems POV to me too.. King1 19:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I added that. But it was in an effort to show the two kinds of views held. At the same time that I added that, I also added the other view:

He is a historical figure that can be described as "lightning rod", drawing strong condemnation as well as great reverence. Critics level the charge, specifically, of the destruction of Hindu temples (see Temple destruction in Indian History) and his suppression of the Shia sect within Islam. Supporters, particularly Muslims, draw a very aposite picture of a pious, simple-living figure in the best traditions of the companions of The Prophet himself and his early successors. The latter group has even gone to extent of using the phrase Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph.

It is subsequent edits that have made this sound odd. My take was that since such opposite views are held about him, let us present both and the reader can see the whole picture.

More generally, I do think that presenting just one side of Aurangzeb--any side--will not do the topic justice. As important as what he did is how he is viewed today and how that affects people's attitudes, both to him and to inter-communal relations in India and the Subcontinent.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

On POVs and Logical discourse

One of my most pleasant and fulfilling exchanges on the Wikipedia is the one under #Tolerance—or the lack thereof above. You can see what can be done if people stick to principles.

Secondly, Aurangzeb is a very controversial figure, with various legends on both sides of the arguments. Let's back everything we say with strong documentation and references, please. Preferably from primary sources.

Thirdly, may I humbly suggest that 24.126.17.155, as a person that this is this invested in a discussion and making such substantial contributions (and I, at least, cherish that) get an account--or use an existing one they may have?

I have attempted a partial edit--as objectively as I can given my own view of the world, I am the first to admit that. Please take a look.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Undiscussed reversion

Deleted my earlier comment here. It was based on a misunderstanding. My apologies.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Questionable Source?

Does anybody know how reliable the book 'Religious Policy of Muslim Rulers' is, incase it actually exist? The website seems questionable. Also it seems to directly contradict the information given on the Varanasi temple which can be found in Jadunath Sarkar's books and almost every other book on Aurangzeb. Should be removed? The information is not verifiable.

• Questionable website? Which one?
• As for the book, I know someone who has a physical copy. Does that qualify as existing? :D
• Well, there are books with varying information. Let's not say that this or that is in "almost every book". Let's try to provide a complete picture.
• And please sign your posts on this page and your edits.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

God knows I am no scholar of Indian history, but I have to ask if the following Literary Evidence of Temple Destruction under Aurangzeb's Rule (Partial List & Quotes) shouldn't count as primary sources from MOSLEM authors in the period... in which case, uh, er, it's pretty damning. I really see no reason not to include at lease some of these citations. another web source would be Destruction of Hindu Temples by Aurangzeb By Rajiv Varma ... as I said, this -in period- moslem sources look pretty convincing.

Further, this site: Why did Aurangzeb demolish the Kashi Vishvanath temple? maked extensive use of the official court chronicle, Maasir-i-Alamgiri - also a primary source, quoting the court chronicle as saying Aurangzeb “ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all Pagan teachings and practices”. another site easily found quotes further from the official court records of Aurangzeb's travels as follows:

January 1680 : "The grand temple in front of the Maharana's mansion (at Udaipur) - one of the wonderful buildings of the age, which had cost the infidels much money - was destroyed and its images broken."

"On 24 January the Emperor went to view the lake Udaisagar and ordered all the three temples on its banks to be pulled down."

"On 29 January Hasan Ali Khan reported that 172 other temples in the environs of Udaipur had been demolished."

I note a few other things not yet mentioned. For example, despite his islamicsm, several sources say that not less than 25% of his court were Hindus.... Still, by all accounts, he did reverse the previous stand of tolerance. In light of that, and with links to primary sources widely available on the web, does anyone have a problem with adding those citations and a few of the primary quotes into the article? Rick Boatright 04:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Commenting on myself, I would urge a look at [4] as well, noting it's mention of his establishment of public morals police.... not yet mentioned in the article. Rick Boatright 04:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there is no reason to exclude facts that are extensively documented and its no secret that he did destroy a huge lots of temples. On the other hand the book refered 'Religious Policy of Muslim Rulers' I am sure is non existent/extremely obscure. I looked up in our library which is one of the best in the world. I think its pretty clear when I ask for physical evidence of the book. Just let me know the citation (publisher etc.). Also let me know where and how to get a copy. The website refered sabrang.com is questionable at best. The information is not even a secondary source. It refers to a website that says that there is a book that gives a citation of the primary source. Neither gives citation of the book nor of the primary source. I think the information about his donating funds to Varanasi temple (which he destoyed by the way) should be removed unless we get reliable source. AnkA 04:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Rick, the issue is not so much the fact that he destroyed temples--but the motivation. One version has him dealing with the largest temple because of requests from a Hindu Maharaja. And the whole narrative seems to be that Aurangzeb was this evil, out-of-the-ordinary South Asian ruler. As an archeologist friend of mine (a Hindu and ardent Gandhian himself) puts it, every religious site in South Asia has multiple layers; every Shivaite Temple is built on the remains of a Vishnavite temple which is built on the remains of a Buddhist site, which... and on top of some of these are mosques. Do I think that destroying one religion or sect's place of worship or holy site to build a different one is ever justified? No! But demonizing one person out of context is inappropriate--and can lead to some nastiness, too.

And I am not saying none of the current inflexible extremism about religious sites comes from Muslims. Aurangzeb seemed to take a more liberal approach to moving or destroying mosques when it made sense, too. There are documented cases in Hyderabad, for example.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think when one destoys temples, builds mosques on the same sites and boasts about that in his chronicles (see above), the motivation is pretty clear. AnkA 19:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"every Shivaite Temple is built on the remains of a Vishnavite temple which is built on the remains of a Buddhist site" I seriously doubt that, but please provide evidence. I would like to see. AnkA 19:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Rick the sites you quote do not sound objective. Calling someone the "warhorse" of one ideology or another does not instill confidence in me about the academic credentials of a paper.

AnkA, let me get back to you on that. You do understand that my statement is an informal one; the academic description will be more complex.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

IFaqeer, the issue is not the "objectiveness" of the site I was quoting... it's that they were quoting PRIMARY SOURCES... that is, 17th cenutry MOSLEM writers and the court records of his court themselves... If you quote primary sources, and they _themselves_ say damning things, the only recompense is to find OTHER primary sources that say something else. Primary sources _rule_ don't they? Again, I freely admit, I am an english-speaking-only US, Kansas Baha'i, not a scholar of 17th century India, and I got drawn into this article due to a tourturous connection to a Baha'i article... but uh, errr, the period sources say that he was the 'warhorse' not the web site I pointed to. (Unless the translation is bad, which I can not comment on.) I'm all for a balanced presentation, in fact, it seems clear that the guy was far from one-sided. After all, the same sources say that 25% of his court were Hindu. But those same sources tend to say that the money flowed into the hands of ex-hindu converts to Islam. (Duh) Additionally, it seems _very_ clear that the guy was a fairly intolerate MOSLEM in the sense that he vigoursly persecuted Sufi and Shia thought, and banned things like court music, court portrature, and refused to participate in the hindu ceremony of the adoration of the monarch. I'm all in favor of citing sources which show the guy's good side, I just think that there need to be SOURCES for it. Rick Boatright 02:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Reducing my own POV'ish addtions

I have toned down my own additions around his and his father's rebellions—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Coinage of Aurangzeb

All,

I am working on the coinage of Aurangzeb. If anyone is also working on the same, maybe we can compare notes.

Do let me know at anuragvarshney@hotmail.com

Changes by User:Neonoman

You are changing content that has been agreed upon after a consensus. "said to" etc are written there to keep the neutral tone of the article, rather than having it sound one sided. See previous discussions. I am changing to older version. As for Black taj, a google search shows ample links. Thanks. --Ragib 17:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS-the edit summary is supposed to say, "rv to last version agreed upon consensus", I hit enter prematurely. --Ragib 17:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit by misleading and false edit summaries. I have to revert again, further reverts from you without discussion will result in the page being protected. Thanks. --Ragib 17:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are making changes and blanking weeks of work. Please add, not blank and remove NPOV consensus to make the article somewhat one-sided. Thanks. --Ragib 17:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would Neonoman (talk · contribs) please come to this discussion? You are changing the existing content like "is said to have" to "have", the current content was reworded to make it NPOV. Also, you have blanked several sections/inserted out of context comments etc making the article POV again. Please come to this discussion. I have already reverted 2 times, and do not want to violate WP:3RR. Thanks. --Ragib 17:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have left comments at Neonoman (talk · contribs)'s page asking him/her to come to discussion here before the massive edits. Please don't go on starting an edit war, come to discussion here... --Ragib 18:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

restructture, organize

In my attempt at restructuring and organization, I mostly tried to move the history into chronological order, and impose some rational structure on the article. I did as little as possible to delete data, but in the absence of some references, I am moving a _few_ phrases into here....

For example:

However regardless of debate, the fact remains that Aurangzeb ordered the destruction of hundreds and thousands of Hindu temples

Without a source, I changed "hundreds and thousands of hindu temples" to "many Hindu temples."

I am by no means certain that the history of the Varanasi and Mathura temples are relevent, and since the history of those temples is linked, would it be unreasonable to delete it from this article?

Further down, the phrase:

Aurangzeb imparted great hardship and destroyed many temples according to his understanding of Islamic teachings, but Marathas refused to give up and after his death established the Maratha empire encompassing Western and North India and thus liberating India from Mughal rulers.

seems pretty darned POV to me and I edited it to

After Aurangzeb's death the Mughal empire shrank and theMaratha empire encompassing Western and North India expanded at its expense.

but I may have overreached there.... In any event, I think this improves the article. Rick Boatright 3 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

I think your edits are reasonable. The first section, however, should read "Early life" rather than biography, it doesn't cover his whole life, right? The main contention about the article is the view of some editors who opine that the article should be only about temple-destruction, forced-conversion etc. That should be included, but devoting the whole article to only those topics make it a POV. I agree to your proposals about the edits to make it a cleaner and balanced article. Thanks. --Ragib 3 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

This article is a tutorial in information degradation

Nemo here...

I wrote the first non-stubby version of this article, and have enriched it at multiple times. It saddens me to see this page turned into a football, and to see it degraded from information to polemic, albeit polemic couched in politically correct terms (e.g., 'It has been said that...', etc.).

Aurangzeb's history is pretty widely documented. He was what he was, and he did what he did. If was villain or hero should be based on the READER's POV, not the writer's. The facts, pro or con, speak for themselves.

Aurangzeb affected a lot of history. He was complex, and in many respects contradictory. Why not let Aurangzeb be Aurangzeb?

Consider the opening statements: "He drew strong condemnation due his persecution of non-Muslims and ordering the destruction of many Hindu temples. Supporters, particularly Muslims, praise him for his simple living in the best traditions of the companions of The Prophet himself and his early successors. The latter group has even gone to extent of using the phrase Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph due to his strict adherence to the Islamic policies Sharia and his treatment of non-Muslims according to Sharia."

Is this the primary summary of A's career?

In my opinion, the first important fact about A is that he enlarged and consolidated the Mogul empire during a period of enormous turbulence.

Second fact is that he implemented his rule based on a conservative interpretation of Islam whose affects and consequences continue to this day.

Third that in implementing his rule, he destroyed a lot of people and a lot of buildings, in a way to designed to impress his potential enemies with his power.

Fourth that his rule inspired revolt, revolt constrained by his rule during his life, but revolt that exploded and completely changed India after his death.

Fifth that he was a thinking, feeling human being who felt pride, doubt, and regret in his rule.

Now, as to all these half-assed 'it is said that...' elements.

"Aurangzeb beheaded Dara Shikoh on the charge of heresy and, it is said, had his severed head taken to their father."

Why stop there? "Aurangzeb, it is said, beheaded Dara Shikoh -- said to be his brother -- on the charge of what what many Muslims would call heresy and, it is said, had his head, which was said to be have been forcibly severed from his body, taken to the man who, it is said, was their father".

Do wiggle-words improve these statements?

"He also ordered the execution of Murad Baksh," I Can't believe my edit saying that Murad was A's brother was removed.

"Among the reasons given in scholarship for putting his father under house arrest was that Shah Jahan wanted to build another Taj Mahal, a black one this time. Aurangzeb did not approve of this at all, and called it atrocious waste of money. "

The Black Taj Mahal. Oh my god, who came up with this? Scholoarship?? This is such Apocrypha, I can't believe I was dinged for removing it. The Black Taj has never had any reality. Somebody show me a reference to Aurangzeb calling this non-thing an atrocious waste of money. Anybody??? I can't believe that my edit that removed this fabrication was undone.

"People have often said that he forcefully converted people to Islam, though this may be a matter of exaggeration. "

REALLY? "People have often said.." WHO?? "might be a matter of exaggeration"?? Says WHO?? about WHAT??

"and is said to have banned some Hindu practices." << Why must we say A is SAID TO have banned practices?? This is well documented.

Wait it gets better:

"He said to have ordered the destruction of several Hindu temples including the ones at Varanasi and Mathura, the holiest of Hindu temples. These acts are documented, but the motivation for the destruction is a matter of much academic and social argument."

In this paragraph "He [is] said to have ordered the destruction..." BUT next sentence says "These acts are well documented." If so, who says he DIDN'T??

Why suggest that these essential facts about Aurangzeb are some sort of fiction?? As for the the motivation for these acts, why mention the "academic and social arguments" at all?? This info, if it is required reading, should appear way, way down at the bottom of the page.

"The most famous temple of the city of Varanasi is..." and "Another famous temple at Mathura..." I can't believe someone removed my edits that correctly moved this entirely extraneous info to individually cross referenced articles on the history of these shrines. Waddup widdat?

"...evidence of these atrocities... " I just can't believe my edit of "He ordered the destruction of several Hindu temples" was removed as POV, and "...evidence of these atrocities... " was allowed to stand as objective. WTF??

The paragraph "From the standpoint of Aurangzeb's Hindu subjects,..." is such a complete mishmash of fact, opinion, too much detail, etc., etc., etc., I can't believe my edits that teased this gobbledygook into something resembling thoughtful writing were removed.

Dear Ragib: Who died and made you God? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neonoman (talk • contribs) 2 July 2005.

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you disagree with me, fine. Be a little civil in referring to other users. As for the article, there was a big debate back in May, 2005, and after a long discussion, User:IFaqeer came up with a version that seemed to be ok to everyone at that time. Why are you picking on me only!!!! --Ragib 2 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

Ragib: I single you out because you personally are the one who removed my edits and because you invited me to respond to those reversions. Just because there was discussion -- that doesn't mean the outcome was of any value.

You yourself are the one who added "this article needs cleanup" header, so you must know this article as it stands is a mess.

Ok, let's see what you did (and this). 1. You blanked several sections in the guise of "moved temple info to own page", while you actually removed a paragraph about Shahjahan's internment, 2. You inserted a comment totally out of context, duplicated from a later section of the page. If you call this "improvement", sorry I have to disagree. The comment WAS there in its proper place, but you picked up a particular sentence and inserted it in front of the article. I stand by my reverts. As for the discussion, at least the outcome was somewhat NPOV, if that's not of value to you, not my problem. I added cleanup because the article is messy and not sectionified, some parts seem to be duplicated. --Ragib 3 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)

Well, Ragib, like I said, who died? Please enjoy your self-appointment as arbiter. You certainly have figured out how to keep me out of the mix. Bye bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemonoman (talk • contribs) July 3 2005.

Well, look into what is written at the end of any edit window If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.. Also, you contribute your material under GFDL, and it is wikipedia's official policy to maintain NPOV in articles. I really hope you would refrain from denigrating other users ... why does it bother you if I tried to arbitrate? Please contribute in a more positive tone rather than being cynical about edits. Thanks. --Ragib 3 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

For those interested in the history of this page, I am the user shown as IP: 68.7.32.163 and IP 68.70.92.40 ... took me a while before I realized about registering by name. My contributions are the articles I created. My disparaging tone is reserved contributors who have not shown much discretion, tolerance, or concern for accuracy.

My dear Ragib: Please enjoy your self-appointment as arbiter. You certainly have figured out how to dominate this endeavor.

You ask: why does it bother you if I tried to arbitrate?

Because I have not seen much improvement as result of this arbitration, which seems, appropriately enough, arbitrary in character. Since you are now acting as arbiter, it would be a kindness for you to express what elements will and will not pass your review.

And also, if you do intend to rv any change you don't happen to like, you might at the very least clean up the many missing words currently in this article. Aurangzeb deserves at least a proofread narrative. It is insulting to those who have attempted at least that much cleanup when you rv those changes.

Also, you might consider whether the ludicrous inclusion of obvious falsehoods such as the Black Taj paragraph increase or reduce the credibility of this article.

And also to consider whether contradictory statements appearing in a single paragraph -- or a single sentence for that matter -- represent best practice.

On the other hand, you might, for a few days, recuse yourself from this page, and allow it to take a better shape. As you yourself have noted, it needs to be cleaned up: Do you intend to do this? Or do you mean to simply rv any attempt to do so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemonoman (talk • contribs) June 3 2005. (Please sign your messages)

I welcome your interest in editing the articles, but in no way you can ask me to get away from the article. I am guessing you are quite new to the wikipedia's editing process, it's built on consensus, and discussion. I have the article on my watch list, so I look into changes that happen, and yes, I do change things that I found to be POV. You have no right to ask me to refrain from that. An article gets better with time, and good edits, but when it starts to sound like one-sided POV, reverts become necessary. Discussion is always better, and this is exactly what the talk page is meant for. You are free to vent your anger at me or any other users, but keeping an article NPOV is wikipedia's official policy, whether you like it or not. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks. --Ragib 3 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Ragib: You wrote I am guessing you are quite new to the wikipedia's editing process

But as you might have seen, I've been contributing since 2003. It is very hard for me to see how this current article has more POV than my well-written version that you rv'd with amazing speed.

I might also mention that I am probably among the only persons you will ever have contact with who has actually made visits -- one might call them pilgrimages -- tracing the route of AUrangzeb's funeral procession from the small shrine in Ahmednagar that marks his death to his open air grave in Khuldabad. I believe sincerely that your 'arbitration' -- or what might be called political censorhip -- is not honoring well the memory of this astonishing. contradictory, and important man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemonoman (talk • contribs) June 3 2005. (Please sign your messages)

Nemonoman, you are always welcome to contribute to the article. Just discuss before making any major changes. I am NOT acting as a "censor" or anything. Just trying to keep it a good wikipedia article. Thanks. --Ragib 3 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

• PS: Please sign your comments. --Ragib 3 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

PS I don't know how to sign this article -- looked, can't find the reference. Here's my best effort: SIGNED NEMONOMAN.

See your talk page, I left the welcome message there which should have info on signing. --Ragib 3 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

Thanks Nemonoman 3 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Ragib: I also note that your are wrangling the Shah Jahan article, whose content bears a remarkable similarity to the Aurangzeb article.

Oddly, you seem content to let this statement alone in the Shah Jahan article: 'Aurangazeb later killed his brother Dara and sent his head to his imprisoned father. ' without adding any 'it is said that's, etc. Do want to describe your reasoning?

Thanks -- Nemonoman 4 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

Frankly, do you think I edit wikipedia articles 24 hours a day? My *only* edits (or "wrangling" to quote you) to Shah Jahan has been to wikify it and to remove some strange comments inserted by a vandal. I count only 4 edits by me to Shah Jahan and all were minor wikification and correction. Frankly, What's your point? Or do you suggest I am responsible for ALL 600,000 of wikipedia's articles? Please focus on the article rather than looking in to my contribution list and asking me to "justify" things. Let me know if you want to discuss any other of my edits, which we can conveniently do in my talk page. As for this page, please stick to discussion on Aurangzeb. Thanks. --Ragib 4 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

since you yourself are the one who said that you are tracking changes to this article and that you would RV any you disagreed with (or as you put it, did not meet the 'consensus'), since you yourself state that you will arbitrate, since you yourself ask why I should have a problem with that, it is you yourself who has made yourself and your actions the focus of this discussion.

Since you yourself state that the article will get better with time, but since you yourself also state that you will rv any changes that you don't like (another single paragraph contradiction), I wonder how this continuing improvement is to occur...So I ask once more for you to summarize what specific POVs are acceptable in articles to which you contribute, and which you intend to let stand? Or will you simply RV on a whim as before. I'm sorry, RV based on consensus, as before. I think that is how you state your position. signed Nemonoman 4 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but you haven't justified any links as to why I should be maintaining Shah Jahan as well, and "justify" any content there when I really haven't contributed content there. Its good to see that you are back to this article. Without extending this meaningless dialogue, I would like to clarify my statement ... I would definitely revert any unilateral POV changes to this article... changes not supported with proof, references and discussion. In other words, I'd try to maintain NPOV in this article. Finally, I think you should remove your focus on me and focus on the article instead. User: Rboatright is doing an excellent job cleaning up the article while you are hell-bent against any thing I say. If you have so much of an issue with me or my edits to "ANY" article, take the issue off this page. I have about 500 articles on my watchlist, and I try to maintain NPOV in most of them to which I have contributed in detail. If you are alluding to any bias in my part, I have been faced such stuff from Pakistanis, Indians alike, and have tried to maintain NPOV in both Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, South Asia related articles. So, go ahead, look into edits I make and show where I have a "whim". I don't want to pick fights with you, but you seem to be determined to do so. Give this page a rest if you only want to pick up fights with me, my talk page is well open for bi-partisan dialogs unrelated to any article. Thanks a lot. --Ragib 4 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Documenting Aurangzeb's Early Official Career

Much of the information I have added is based on material from Waldemar Hansen's book "The Peacock Throne" (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1972).

Aurangzeb's own words describe his destruction of the temple, his prohibition against the temple dancers, and his defense of acts against non-Muslims as cited in Jadunath Sarkar's biography of Aurangzeb.

Signed -- Nemonoman 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

The 'Black Taj' Must GO!

That whole section is just ridiculous. The Black Taj is total apocrypha, and the attempt to show that Aurangzeb's imprisonment of Shah Jahan had some basis in that fraudulent legend is simply ridiculous. Aurangzeb imprisoned his father because he wanted to rule.

Please be on notice -- I intend to excise that whole section soon -- Nemonoman 4 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

This is fine with me, as long as you provide references, preferably from original sources. Thanks. --Ragib 4 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Ragib: Can you please elaborate? RBoatwright currently has edited section to show several refs to the fictional nature of this legend. What sort of reference are you looking for? Original sources have no reference to a Black Taj. I can't find any scholarly source for a "black taj-based imprisonment". Even the source cited by RBoatwright in support of this myth merely says that the supposed Black Taj didn't get built because of Shah Jahan's imprisonment, not that the imprisonment was to motivated to prevent its being built. And this source is from a web page for a Indian Shopping Yahoo Store. http://www.easterncreations.com/hioftajma.html

This whole story is tourist legend romance only.

Nemonoman 4 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

Uh, no... the Black Taj _needs_ to be mentioned in order to DISCOUNT IT AS A LEGAND. It's in 2/3 of the web sources, and we need to explain that although you're going to read about it, it isn't real. Some mention of whats-his-name the french guy that started it all would probebly be good. Rick Boatright 4 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Rick: I recognize that the Black Taj itself is widely available Urban Myth, but I don't find any reference anywhere on any web page that Aurangzeb imprisoned Shah Jahan TO PREVENT its building -- except on copies of this Wiki article.

There are some web references (i.e, your Indian Yahoo Shop webpage http://www.easterncreations.com/hioftajma.html) that say Black Taj failed to be built because of Shah Jahan's imprisonment. Different than IMPRISONMENT TO PREVENT its building.

I think Black Taj debunking belongs on Taj page, and maybe Shah Jahan page. There's really no reason at all for it to be on the Aurangzeb page, in my very very humble opinion.

PS Nice work on all your recent edits.

Nemonoman 4 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

Nemo, it is just fine that you provide either scholarly links, or specifically mention that no scholarly proof has been found of this claim. I noticed that the Taj Mahal article refers to the Black Taj, and talks of the legend. So, if the legend is false, either give scholarly links about the myth being false, or state that there is no mention in very dependable sources. The myth or whatever it is, is quite widespread, so you should state that. Thanks. --Ragib 4 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

R & R: Please note that there is NO PARTICULAR relationship to Aurangzeb's imprisonment of Shah Jahan and any Black Taj legend. Shah Jahan's imprisonment is a fact barely worth mentioning, IMO, not worth two paragraphs. Whether Shah Jahan could or could not see the white taj is scarcely worth such prominence, which (before my early life edits) amounted to nearly 8% of the article. It doesn't deserve a TOC summary link.

My suggestion replace this whole section with: "Aurangzeb imprisoned Shah Jahan in Agra's Red Fort until his death in 1666."

Other romantic information properly should be dealt with in Taj and Shah Jahan articles, not Aurangzeb.

Bottom line: Aurangzeb has NO PARTICULAR RELATIONSHIP to the Taj Mahal. No relationship to the White Taj, much less to any supposed Black Taj. NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE TAJ == let's just excise this little detour.

Nemonoman 4 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Changes to War of Succession Section, and PROPOSED CHANGE

Added some detail to the stubby war of succession section, which was phrased in such a way as to be misleading == or even false == previously.

I propose to drop the "Imprisonment of Shah Jahan" section entirely in favor of this sentences:

"Aurangzeb imprisoned Shah Jahan in Agra's Red Fort until his death in 1666."

As stated, Aurangzeb has no particular relationship to the Taj whatsoever. Apocrypha about Shah Jahan's ability to see the Taj from his confinement, if relevant, are not relevant to Aurangzeb, but only as an ironic comment on Shah Jahan. I believe these myths have no place in ANY article, but certainly none in the Aurangzeb article.

If someone REALLY FEELS a need to keep this stuff, I propose a SEPARATE section: Myths and LegendS

This section would contain romantic myths about Aurangzeb, including:

Youthful confrontation with mad elephant
Prayers during battle 
The many appearances of Shuhja after his supposed death
Various stories about what he did with Dara's head
How Dara's wife mutilated her face, fearing that she would now belong to A.
Shah Jahan imprisonment stories:
 Taj in the mirror
 Daughters and concubines
 Shah Jahan crushes and eats pearl necklace so Aurangzeb can't get it.

Etc.

This could end up being a very long section indeed. --Nemonoman 5 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

I think the myths and legends section would be superfluous ... and make the article bloated. To make it brief and relevant to Aurangzeb, details about Taj can be reduced to a line or two, and a ref to both Shah Jahan and Taj Mahal can be added below that section. By the way, what was the name of Aurangzeb's wife? And sons/daughters? That may be useful info to include here. --Ragib 5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Its funny, I just finished ADDING a myths section to Brown v Board of Education Rick Boatright 6 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

Apologies to Ragib

I just read the WHOLE history of this page, from my very first destubbing in 2003 to its current much improved state, and now I regret having ducked out in the middle of the movie -- missed all the excitement!

More importantly, I missed out on Ragib's efforts to sort of put some boundaries on the icedniary comments being added a couple of months ago.

Returning to the Wiki after all the fireworks, without having seen that immediate history, I think I stepped into a fairly fragile peace. I misinterpreted Ragib's comments to me because I did not know the immediate history, and I replied to those comments with more heat than he deserved.

Since I stated those comments publicly in this forum, I feel compelled to say publicly in this forum:

I was wrong. I apologize. I hope that there will be peace in the wiki.

--Nemonoman 5 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)

Hey Nemo, it's alright. I also appreciate your interest in cleaning up the article, and the great job you are doing by adding researched content and sections to the article. With the edit job by Rick and you, this article is becoming better and better. Thanks. --Ragib 6 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Killing the "Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph" reference

I can find no web reference for this title except from copies of the Wiki article. There are apparently many other more substantial candidates for '5th rightly guided Caliph' being promulgated by the faithful. So far as I can tell, there are not 'many Muslims' calling Aurangzeb the fifth Rightly Guided Caliph -- in fact, aside from the author of this line, I can't find any on the web.

Perhaps there are non-english and/or non-web sources that can be referenced? If so the candidacy for the title is important enough for the reference to be returned.

I think it was put there by user:IFaqueer, you may drop him a message about references. Thanks. --Ragib 6 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

not quite. it was User:IFaqeer (no "U" ) Rick Boatright 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

I have left him a query about sources, but his page says he's on vacation.--Nemonoman 7 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

it also says please emailhim. I will. Rick Boatright 7 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)

I am not saying that he was accepted generally as such; or even that any sizable group calls him that; just that that is the extreme manifestation of how he is regarded. Is it inaccurate to even mention this? I mean, I have even seen that sentence quoted on the web as an indictment of what some Muslims think of him!

As I say on my User page , one of the main reasons I engage with, champion and associate myself with the Wikipedia is that I consider it a chance to receive and present a more complete picture of the world than I grew up having to read. If we are only going to allow in material that has gone through the mainstream publishing wringer, why bother with a Wikipedia at all? Why not just read the Brittanica or some such tome? I see the Wikipedia as a chance to help build a more complete picture of the world as seen by all its people. For better and for worse.

Or do I have to change careers, write a book or two on him, then wait till they are accepted in academia and then include it in Wkipedia? Then what's the point of the Wikipedia?

There might be reference to this in A Short History of Pakistan (IH Qureshi, University of Karachi Press), A Short History of the Saracens, or Anecdotes from Islam; the latter being two really old books my father has copies of. He lives on another continent. I will see if I can get references.

That might sound more radical than I feel, but what I wrote is based on about 35 years (my age) of living in Muslim communities on three different continents. And the approach I usually take to things like this where there are two or three very strongly held opinions about a matter which does not have clear fact obvious to all, is to present both (or more) points of view in their clear, stark, even, form for the reader to know what views are held. That was the idea behind listing what detractors and his supporters think. What is up there right now in the first 3/4 paras is very, very one-sided, to be frank.

To give you an idea of where I am coming from, BTW, in this regard, I quote an exchange I had with a person who I didn't agree with as one of the best discussions I have had on here. See #Tolerance—or the lack thereof above.

PS: Aren't most of the second and third paragraphs as they stand right now basically opinions? Dare I say, the --I hate to say it--fanatic anti-Aurangzeb view of him; a view that paints a picture I find hard to believe about ANY body.

Editing here, to leave only POV in:

...Strict adherence to Islam and Sharia (Islamic law) -- as he interpreted them -- were the foundations of his reign....aggressively taking steps against non-Muslims. His policies led directly to the destruction of many Hindu temples, to many, many deaths, and changed the face of India forever.

...used vast military might to ... encourage conversion to Islam. His policies polarized India in ways that continue to this day.

He ruled for 50 years. If he'd used his "vast military might" to "encourage" conversion, wouldn't the percentage of Muslims in his empire have changed over two generations?

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) July 7, 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Well, oddly enough, the percentage of Indian Muslims DID increase rather dramatically during Aurangzeb's rule. Also the number of non-Muslims who fled from areas controlled by Mughals. Surely you know this??? What do you think the controversy is about? --Nemonoman 7 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)

In IFaqeer's response to the query, there's a lot of beating about the bush, and even more dragging in of totally extraneous issues. Scoring it at home, it seems to me here's how it comes out:

The question was simple -- can you provide any references?

The answer seems to be equally simple despite all the roundabout stuff: not really, no. 130.126.30.35 8 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Really? More round-about than not signing your post?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) July 8, 2005 15:48 (UTC)

No need to abandon logic just because your feelings are hurt. What is round-about about not signing my post? (Yep, same me, different machine, and I'm still not signing my post.)

Not signing a post is a perfectly straight-forward declaration, isn't it? I am a wimp. I do not care to identify myself.

Maybe I'm just painfully shy. Maybe I have no ego wrapped up in this. Maybe I don't want to tangle with someone like you. Maybe I can't be bothered to set up a wiki account. Maybe I just don't see how who I am is in any way relevant to the validity of whatever I'm saying.

Once again, you don't respond to the substance of what I said. Presumably you think that you have somehow deflected the validity of what I said by this childish sniping.

Real men, buddy, respond to the substance of what is said. Real men don't go nyaaah-nyaaah-nyaaah-nyaaah-nyaaah-nyaaah.

Or let's cut it short. Shit or get off the pot. If you have any reference(s) to provide, why don't you just do it? If you don't, why can't you gracefully admit it, and drop it there. 130.126.234.210 22:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

I would like to re-insert the NPOV tag on this article. I am not saying the article should say all nice things about the man. But the one-sided view currently there might as well have been from exactly the kind of encyclopedia that I grew up reading; that vilified every South Asian historical or current figure, Hindu, Muslim or otherwise who the West did not understand as a monster.

I am sorry, but I think the net effect of including only published, "referenced" material is to remove any hint of divergence from the view that the man was a monster, plain and simple.

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aurangzeb#Tolerance.E2.80.94or_the_lack_thereof above. Once upon a time, I was very happy at the balance we had been able to bring to the article. But what has happened since has shaken my faith in the Wikipedia itself.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) July 7, 2005 04:07 (UTC)

PS: I don't mean to accuse well-meaning editors (like I assume rboatright, nemonoman and ragib are, for example) of being biased or out to get one person or group. But the over-emphasis on "referenced" material, IMHO, is misguided and can be very counter-productive to presenting the whole picture.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) July 7, 2005 04:09 (UTC)

I personally don't see what the problem is. I sure don't think Aurangzeb is a monster. What non-neutral point of view has been inserted? I can't find anybody any place who calls him the Fifth Right-Guided Caliph. I have been studying Aurangzeb off and on for more than 25 years, and my second historical novel on India in 1658 (in which Aurangzeb plays a major role) will be published by St Martin's in 2007.

I honor and appreciate the man and his works. It indeed pains me that you call my effort to expand on the wiki article 'vilification' or that it suggests A was a monster. I've relooked, and I just don't see it. It just isn't in there.

If many Muslims say that Aurangzeb was the Fifth Right-Guided Caliph, well, let's say so. Let's get a few names of the Muslims who say so, however; let's get a sense of the credibility of their reasoning.

I think it's fair to ask your source? Or does that make me westerner that doesn't understand and sees you as a monster.

Please consider that not every westerner is a complete bigot. A divergence of viewpoint does not necessarily mean that one person is stupid and wrong and that the other is smart and right.

I would like for you to explain specifics of what offends in current version.

One more thing: I do have a pov. My point of view is that Aurangzeb acted on his sense of moral duty with no regard to the future consequences. He wanted the world to conform to his view of Islam. Such a one-pointed dedication to a sense of moral duty is what makes men large historic figures. I believe that Aurangzeb is probably among the forty or fifty persons who have most influenced our CURRENT POLITICAL WORLD...right up there with Lenin or Churchill or Mao.

--Nemonoman 7 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)

It is not a matter of a non-neutral POV being inserted, but material being removed that might bring things to a more balanced POV. I am not calling you a bigot; just pointing out that the corpus of "mainstream" scholarship on Aurangzeb so far has been from one or two cultural places that leave us at an disadvantage as to the real picture. That a person as engaged with this topic as you are has not heard mention of anyone referring to him as a candidate for "Khulfa-e-Rashidoon" status just proves that point--at least to me. And I am not supporting him; just militating for a more complete, real picture.

And I see what you are saying.

But read your own take above and one of the last versions I worked on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurangzeb&oldid=13867758

The perspective you bring does not preclude what we were saying at that point:

He is commonly considered the last of the great Mughal emperors. He is a historical figure that can be described as "lightning rod", drawing strong condemnation as well as great reverence. Critics level the charge, specifically, of the destruction of Hindu temples (see Temple destruction in Indian History) and his suppression of the Shia sect within Islam. Supporters, particularly Muslims, draw a very aposite picture of a pious, simple-living figure in the best traditions of the companions of The Prophet himself and his early successors. The latter group has even gone to extent of using the phrase Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph.

The view you bring could have added to that picture, instead of replacing it. And I really appreciate the historical detail you have added. But take a look at the headings--just the headings--of the article. What do you see? I only see a charge sheet against him. Like you said, it is not a matter of smart and right versus stupid and wrong--or, I might add, of aggreived native versus bigoted Westerner. More a matter of seeing things from different vantage points. The job of the Wikipedia, as I see it, is to try to present as many of them, within limits, as possible. And an outside perspective I am the first to say, can often lead to a better, more complete view. I just don't agree that that's what has happened in this case.

As for historical relevance, you make a good point. And, particularly after what you say, here's something to think about: Aurangzeb's significance in today's world goes well beyond just the facts (or, in this case, the facts as seen only by his detractors--I am not budging from that); well beyond what he did then influening what is happening now. He is used by Hindu right wingers (and, quite frankly, the Indian establishment) as proof that Muslim rulers were barbaric and bad for India. Not to mention complete outsiders. (Aurangzeb was "fifth generation" "Indian", if you count from Babar, and had the blood of several "native" foremothers in him.) On the other hand Muslim right wingers put their picture of him up as the ideal one of a Muslim ruler who is very principled and upright. As you will admit, both pictures are very selective. And the actions of these two groups have led to things like the massacare in Gujarat on the one hand and the Taliban on the other.

In positive Wikispirit,

PS: When I look for books by you, what names am I looking for?

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) July 7, 2005 17:52 (UTC)

IFaqeer: I hope to review and address your points soon. In the meantime, I'd prefer not to say the personal information about my book so publicly, but if you provide some sort private contact (i.e., email address), I'll be pleased to provide.

You can actually use the "Email this User" link on my User page. I have it set up right.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) July 8, 2005 03:16 (UTC)

Thanks. Sent. Didn't know about this feature, and have now set up my profile to allow email. --Nemonoman 8 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Done with my edits

Ok, that about does it for me. I'll be interested in seeing what happens next. --Nemonoman 21:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Just looked at the history of this page and discovered that my original article on "Aurengzeb" was created 2 years ago and merged with the "aurAngzeb" article a couple of weeks later. What a long strange trip it's been--Nemonoman 00:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Just rv'd the changes made by 24.someIP. Thanks for the comments, but suggest you read some of the supporting material before you start chipping away...--Nemonoman 02:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

So, can I put the NPOV tag back?

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, IFaqeer, if you think it's right to do so. But please be prepared that others may disagree with your action. What POV, exactly, do you believe this article now espouses?

--Nemonoman 15:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't get the usage of the term Pir or Caliph by Aurengzeb..I have not read that anywhere? In addition the imposition of Jizya was in lieu of being conscripted, it was considered an acceptable alternative to fighting in the name of Islam for other people. --Zak 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

hey

Hey. What is the type of civilization during Aurangzeb's period of reign?

POV discussion; reign of terror?

what the???????

I'm very surprised at the BIAS of this article. A lot of facts are missed/glossed over. Aurangzeb's reign of terror over the Sikhs is virtually non-existant in this article. It's been well documented, yet there is only a mere paragraph talking about his relationships with the Sikhs and Guru Gobind Singh. This article should be giving FACTS that support BOTH SIDES of this argument. ONLY THEN will a reader be able to decide if Aurangzeb was an Evil Ruler or a Historical Hero.

good job Pervez Ashraf

i totally agree with you:

if it weren't for the Sikhs, India would have fallen into Aurangzeb's control. That should be added to the article. The facts have to be shown, and the fact is that this man was an evil monster. He tried wiping out all Hindus; basically anyone that didn't follow Islam was either forced to convert, or killed. Don't believe me? Go read a book about Sikhs and Guru Gobind Singh.

Please read the above long discussion.

Whatever he was, to say India would have fell into his hands had it not been for the Sikhs is a pretty strong statement which I dont believe can be substantiated. He was what he was, but the Sikhs were too small in number and power and confined to Punjab so whether they had the power to 'save' India is questionable. This is a POV pushing. After reading the above you should be aware that much consideration and discussion has been put into this topic and we must respect this and debate whatever we disagree with with clear cited sources and justifications.

Regarding Guru Gobind Singh, he himself allied with Bahadur Shah Zafar the son of A, so had this official policy of 'convert or die' been the case, then this alliance would not have been forthcoming. It is always used by negative propogandists as mentioned above, A is either seen as a monster or a great emporer. This article is an opportunity to find facts and neutrality to allow the user to find his/her own judgement.

--Raja 12:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting several edits

I have rv'd several edits made by Siddiqui. There are 2 major concerns and several minor concerns.

1st: Aurangzeb is associated with India specifically, and the details of the affect of his reign on India are well documented. Expanding this article to a general "Southeast Asia" focus is not a good idea, unless there are other sources and facts that show how Aurangzeb's influence spread outside India. At present I know of very few, except as documented in the article's conclusions.

2nd: Aurangzeb's temple destruction is not "alleged". It is well documented in his own court documents. A wider body of records, less reliable, document vastly larger numbers of temples destroyed during his reign.

This aspect of Aurangzeb's reign has generated considerable scholarly discussion, much of it extremely partisan. In keeping with wikipedia's NPOV, some external references provide a way for those interested in the subject to explore it further.

I'll mention one addtional minor point: Shivaji didn't just "occupy" maharashtra; he did indeed "liberate" it in that he set up an alternate government that became a major force. --Nemonoman 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol, how could a Maratha "occupy" Maharashtra! Can we put in the "deleted jokes" section of wikipedia? deeptrivia (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Children section

I have first adapted and on further consideration removed the section on Aurangzeb's children. The listing doesn't add much value, mostly covering same ground as the list in the info box. I'm open for suggestions, but at the present time, I am removing this info. --Nemonoman 18:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Aurangzeb had family, siblings and children but small paragraphs about them have been removed. While his misdeeds have been extensively covered in many paragraphs and links. Another fine example of dehumanizing and demonizing Aurangzeb. In my view, he must view him with all the angles. There are many links that duplicate same events and misdeeds. We can have least number of links that cover all his deeds and misdeeds.

Siddiqui 03:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Despicable Aurangzeb's War Against the Heroic Rajputs

In case there was any doubt, this title was meant to be ironic. It is meant to parody the obvious point of view of the anonymous editor who wrote the "War against the Rajputs" section.--Nemonoman 16:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)'

On a regular basis, an anonymous editor has added a lot of new material about Aurangzeb and the Rajputs.

This editor, for example, has made the War against the Rajputs a main heading, to which the Marathi and Sikh rebellions are but subheadings.

In these edits, Rajputs are described as "noble", "valiant", "heroic", etc. Aurangzeb is described as treacherous. The Rajputs appear to be the single-handed motivator of right-thinking rebellion and alliance with the good guys. It was the Rajputs who encouraged Prince Akbar to rebel. The alliances between Rajputs and Mughals, in the version told by this editor, have all been replaced by occasional tales of rebellion

I have read Sarkar's abridged history of Aurangazeb, but I don't have a copy (found it at Duke Univ). So I can't verify the authenticity of his source material, but I don't recall that Sarkar treated the subject in this way. Rajput rebellion was scattershot through Aurangzeb's reign; in the main his tenure was marked by alliances the Rajputs; in fact the Rajput armies made up the most effective arm of Mughal domination. It was Jai Singh and his armies, after all, that stopped Shivaji after all other attempts had failed. But maybe the valiant Jai Singh only did that when the treacherous Aurangzeb held a gun to his head.

I acknowlege that this article is weak in a review of the miscellaneous rebellions of the Rajputs. It's weak in a lot of areas. To give those few incidents such prominence, however, and to describe them in such biased ways, is not an acceptable alternative. I am rv'ing these changes back to the previous version. --Nemonoman 16:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Khushal Khan and the Pashtun revolt

I am surprised no mention has been made of the pashtun revolt led by Khushal Khan Khattak against auregzeb..the loss of the support of rajputs and pashtuns who were the bedrock of the Mughal Empire played a major role in it's decline.

It shouldn't be entirely surprising that the Aurangzeb article doesn't mention Khattak...it doesn't mention dozens of leaders who rebelled, only a few of the major players. Even the wiki-bio of Khattak includes only this line relating to his rebellion: he incited the Pashtuns to rebel against the Mughal Emperor Aurenzeb. Khattak's rebellion was probably not the biggest event in Aurangzeb's reign; apparently it was a big deal to Khattak, however; even so, Khattak's wiki-editors barely mention it.--Nemonoman 15:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nemon I am working on updating that..as a side note I have yet to read a book on the Mughals which doesn't mention Khushal Khans revolt--Zak 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zak: Thanks for adding this information. I'd like to make it more in keeping with the rest of the article.

I don't know that this revolt had the long term impact on India that the Sikhs' or the Marathis' did. There were many revolts in Aurangzeb's reign and most were settled messily through bribes, etc. Another distinction is that the revolts of the Marathis and Sikhs succeeded in holding territory captured from Aurangzeb, and then governing that territory in defiance of the Emperor.

So, overall, I think this section could use a little less prominence, because its long-term historical importance was not so great in the life of Aurangzeb -- which is the subject of the article.

Also, I think Khushal's relation to the Pashtun's needs earlier mention.

Next, I doubt that Khushal was imprisoned for 2 years for resentment over tolls. More likely some specific charge was in place?

You make no mention of the period of the revolt. When did it start?

This article, however, says that Aurangzeb spent about two years..encamped at Attak. I can't find any other source for this information. Can you cite any other source that can verify it?

Thanks. --Nemonoman 21:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Sikhs engaged in numerous battles against the Mughals, and though often outnumbered, succeeded in gaining more and more territory."

I found no evidence for the above statment. It seems to me that it simply exists to hold nationalistic and racial pomp.

Unnecessary

"Sikhs engaged in numerous battles against the Mughals, and though often outnumbered, succeeded in gaining more and more territory."

I found no evidence for the above statment. It seems to me that it simply exists to hold nationalistic and racial pomp.

Minor Edits to the Article

Yes, I realize Aurangzeb was a controversial ruler, to say the least. But many people are ignoring the fact that POV battles have left much of the article decrepit, with choppy sentences and lines that read more like liner notes than an actual encyclopedia article. In that spirit, I've reworded the introduction--while trying to preserve an NPOV--and attempted to condense the section on Aurangzeb's succession. Please focus on the conventions, too, while you iron out the POV debate over Aurangzeb's legacy.MetraB 21:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Akbar's rebellion?

The page says: "Aurangzeb's son Akbar left the Mughal court and joined with Sambhaji, inspiring some Mughal forces to join the Marathas."

What was the reason? From Jadunath Sarkar's work:

“From an early period in the campaign emissaries of the Rajputs had been tempting Akbar to rebel against his father. Tahawwur Khan, the second in command of the imperial forces in Marwar, was the intermediary of these treasonable negotiations. The Maharana Raj Singh and Durgadas, the Rathor leader, told Akbar how his father’s bigoted attempt to root out the Rajputs was threatening the stability of the Mughal empire, and urged him to seize the throne and restore the wise policy of his forefathers if he wished to save his heritage from destruction. In this attempt to place a truly national king on the throne of Delhi, they promised to back him with the armed strength of the two greatest Rajput clans, the Sisodias and the Rathors.”

about him being fifth rightly guided caliph

hi. i saw that someone removed the phrase of being fifth rightly guided caliph. i cant give u a reference, so i m not reverting the change here.

but i live in delhi. and i do go to the walled city frequently. You can easily find that it is a widely held notion there that he was a perfect muslim to the core. atleast perfect one in the subcontinent.

to prove this fact, u will easily find in the referenced books that, he never touched alchohol throughout his life, (unlike his father). his grave doesnt has an tomp, its an open air grave (unlike his all forefather). at any point of time, he didnt had more than four wives. he reimposed Jizya which his ascendants had withdrawn. and there are several other arguments.

you can put this fact, of him being 5th caliph, as long as nobody argues for it or gives substantial support to his point. i havent found anyone, muslim or non-muslim in india, who says that he wasn't the perfect muslim. or precisely that he is the fifth rightly guided caliph.

of course u wont find this reference in hadith and qurans since they were written about 900 years before he was born.

--nids 12:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "he is considered the fifth rightly guided caliph" doesn't add much value. Random people in Delhi calling him the fifth rightly guided Caliph doesn't really count. There were plently of muslim rulers (those immediately after the four canonical rightly guided Caliphs come to mind) who didn't drink and who didn't spend too much money on their tombs. Why not them? His personal piety and adherence to Islam is a historically verifiable fact. People might extoll him by calling him the fifth rightly guided Caliph but that's not something that's ratified by Islamic scripture. It's at best just a folk title. --Nkv 12:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

as far as subcontinent is concerned, i dont find any account of some other so islamic ruler. as a matter of fact, akbar started din-e-elahi a religion different from islam. his only punishment in islam is death. similarly jehangir drank and almost all others. he was the best muslim. and perhaps the fifth rightly guided caliph too. as a matter of fact, almost half the population of indian subcontinent including pakistan and bangladesh converted during his reign. nids 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Khulafa Rashideen' (rightly guided Caliphs) has theological significance in Islam stemming from some of the Hadith. Calling a person the fifth of these can be construed to mean that the people who called him that had a high opinion of his piety. It however does not mean that the primary texts considered him one. A statement like "so and so considered him the fifth rightly guided Caliph" is one thing. To say (as you have) that his piety implies precisely that he is the fifth rightly guided caliph is inaccurate. --Nkv 05:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think wikipedia has given enough information. When you know the information why do you want wikipedia to tell that was and evryone knows that Aurangzeb was a murderer.I think i will never lose hope with wikipedia.

Weasel words

"Is considered by most ___ to be ___" is weaseling. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, do you want a source for this statement or are you contesting that aurangzeb is revered by Non-muslims for his pious and saintly acts.nids(♂) 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Weasel statements like the one above should be avoided in Wikipedia, so it needs to be changed or removed. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting if, exceedingly, biased article against Aurangzeb. More facts and the fact that so many temples have been preserved by Aurangzeb seems to be not mentioned.

Last few revisions

Look, if, indeed, he is considered a tyrant by most Hindus, Sikhs, Shia muslims and other non-Muslim Indians (and we have citations on that: www.sscnet.ucla.edu and www.hinduunity.org - I mean, there's Hindu Unity right there), shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? I mean, it's not like it says he is a tyrant, it just says that some minorities think he's a tyrant (and we can prove that they do). ^{Well Drawn} Charlie 12:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Page locked

This page has turned into an edit war. Request all editors please reach a compromise version following all wiki policies of Referenced content, comprehensiveness, NPOV and brilliant prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dryden

On a non-controversial note, the Dryden "poem" referred to at the end of the article was a full-length play called "Aureng-zebe" of 1675. It was not at all historically accurate (as was usual). Doesn't seem to be included in his "major works" in the JD article here, which is odd, as it is quite well knownJohnbod 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Aurengazeeb road

In spite of all the attrocities of Aurengazeb, the "Secular" India has a road in the Central New Delhi, renamed as 'Aurangazeb Road'. I would like to add this in Trivia section (rams81 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

What's stopping you?--Nemonoman 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism section

I have renamed and rewrote this section, who is to say what the real history is regarding Aurangzeb's policy towards temples...what I mean to say is, that since there are conflicting stories, how do we know which one is accurate? To label the defenders of Aurangzeb as revisionists is not NPOV...calling Naipaul and other critics revisionists would be the same. DigiBullet 16:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

B-Class Biography Rating

B-Class? What does an article have to be to rate an 'F'? --Nemonoman 03:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So whats the latest on Aurangzeb? I read the whole discussion and found it very informative, good work by all the participants. I have yet to read the article :). --Mohibalvi 09:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

World's Greatest Infobox

This verison has the world's greatest infobox! --Nemonoman 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Stick to topic

DO NOT DELETE MY COMMENTS 59.163.10.181

This is a biography page for Aurangzeb the Great. So why are there so many unreferenced and irrelevant paragraphs on people like "Gobind Singh" etc? Aurangzeb did not even engage with the Sikhs and Henuds from his northern regions he was busy fighting wars against kingdoms and tribes based in southern India during the last 20+ years of his reign. More of this should be highlighted in addition to Aurangzeb's personal life such as earning his own income from the farms he owned and making hand-written copies of the Qur'an and stiching prayer hats himself which he sold for a modest price. Check at Abraham Eraly's "The Mughal Throne" for more on this great man Aurangzeb Alamgir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.90.33 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said.Making copies of Qur'an and doing some stiching would overpower the burden of murdering one's own brothers and imprisoning one's father and causing death of thousands of people and destroying hundereds of temples! Is this what you want to say? Don't rely on just one book or mughal chronicals! Go and read atleast ten books on your Alamgir by neutral writers and his character would emerge as a hypocrate.And gobind singh was not a 'people' , he was one of the greatest prophets of India.Go and read books on him tooAjjay (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.