Was Aurangzeb the most evil ruler India has ever had?

[SarthakGanguly]

Tarek Fatah's video in a lecture in new Delhi.

Aurangzeb the Great was the best Mughal ruler. It was during his time that an Indian empire reached its zenith.
Also Vishwanath temple was despoiled by Hindu rebels and was hence not Aurangzeb's fault. He even built temples from state treasury. It is the recent Hindu terrorist movement that tries to give a bad name to Aurangzeb, who was, as we know, a saintly figure when compared to other monarchs.

Tarek Fatah is an Islamophobe. His views are colored by his ideology.

 

[Stag112]

The guy responsible for the Sikh massacre of 1984 and the party that he lead are widely despised in India today. So, shouldn't Aurangazeb also be despised? Logic 101.

He is just an attention-whore. I have noticed his posting pattern.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The guy responsible for the Sikh massacre of 1984 and the party that he lead are widely despised in India today. So, shouldn't Aurangazeb also be despised? Logic 101.

It is no secret that Hindus were responsible for massacring Sikhs. Even today Hindus don't recognize the existence of the Sikh faith as separate from the Dharmic umbrella, such is the level of intolerance Hindus have towards their so called compatriots.

 

[Josef K]

Even in this apology, he is clearly banning building new temples in the land of us Hindus.

Google "Pact of Omar". What he did was in accordance with that. This is what happens when you become a subject of a Islamic nation, even if you are a majority.

He is just an attention-whore. I have noticed his posting pattern.

She.

 

[Archie]

that Title belongs to Winston Churchill.

I could say King George V
but he was basically a powerless figurehead
a Mascot if you would, for keeping the people in the dark as to who ruled Britania.

 

[rezangahir]

The worst thing Aurangazeb did was a bloody suppression of the Sikh rebels led by their Guru, but didn't independent India kill far more Sikh in the 80s? Does that mean India is a bigoted Islamist state? No one likes anti-state/monarch activities.

Ignorant Bangla desi

Only one major riot took place in the history of entire independent India that too was limited Delhi and Sikhs lives as far as Andaman and south India not a single one was touched.

And it was only Sikhs who crushed khalistan Gen. Brar was the commander of Blue star and KPS Gill was the DGP of punjab police.

Even Indra (your librator) refused to remove her Sikh body guards even after she was warned.

The worst thing Aurangazeb did was a bloody suppression of the Sikh rebels led by their Guru, but didn't independent India kill far more Sikh in the 80s? Does that mean India is a bigoted Islamist state? No one likes anti-state/monarch activities.

 

[Whazzup]

The worst thing Aurangazeb did was a bloody suppression of the Sikh rebels led by their Guru, but didn't independent India kill far more Sikh in the 80s? Does that mean India is a bigoted Islamist state? No one likes anti-state/monarch activities.

It was a political blunder done by a party which is loved by alot of Bangladeshis here plus do look into how many sikhs died in both incidents . And India is alot bigger than just Delhi dear .

 

[doublemaster]

He destroyed three of our holiest temples and built mosques on top.

Even in this apology, he is clearly banning building new temples in the land of us Hindus.

No political reason for that btw, OTOH it can be argued that everything has a political reason.

I dont even know why you have love for that guy, just because he was a ''strict'' kind of muslim, like wahabis today?

No, He is been hated because he is Mughal, so others defend him. Thats all.
By the way there was no UN or UN kind of enity that time. King was the rule. What comes to him mind was the rule. He never allowed to build new temple because once he won, it was no longer "land of Hindus". Even after that he has done justice which rarely other Kings would have done.

 

[Josef K]

No, He is been hated because he is Mughal, so others defend him. Thats all.
By the way there was no UN or UN kind of enity that time. King was the rule. What comes to him mind was the rule. He never allowed to build new temple because once he won, it was no longer "land of Hindus". Even after that he has done justice which rarely other Kings would have done.

So you win someone else's land and claim that for your own faith despite the fact that your faith is neither native nor the predominant faith of the land. Isn't that the definition of a tyrant? Maybe for you, it is something normal because of your conditioning which says, "what is mine is mine. what is yours is also mine". Not for civilized people. If we go by your logic, since the Jews won Palestine, it is no longer, "land of Arabs".

 

[Stag112]

No, He is been hated because he is Mughal, so others defend him. Thats all.
By the way there was no UN or UN kind of enity that time. King was the rule. What comes to him mind was the rule. He never allowed to build new temple because once he won, it was no longer "land of Hindus". Even after that he has done justice which rarely other Kings would have done.

There are many other Mughals too, but this guy is hated not others. Many others are celebrated for their contribution to our shared history. This is plain ridiculous that you say he was hated because he was a Mughal. You do know he faced more rebellion by non Muslims than anyone else. And for him India many not have been land of Hindus, but we obviously do not share that view.

I can not even begin to imagine you taking an benevolent view of someone if that somebody had destroyed your holy places (mecca madina etc) and built their own structures on top. This much even you know. Yet you carry on with this hypocrisy, hence lose all credibility in my view. I can only imagine your viewpoint is tainted by religion, and that too a a wahhabi type of ''strict'' interpretation.

If you had taken the view that judging historical personalities today is pointless and they were all different shades of grey, I'd have supported your view. But I suspect you have your own good and bad guys in history too

Your real issue is religion, and so was Auragzebs.

 

[rezangahir]

Our Mi 35 gunships are named after Akbar

There are many other Mughals too, but this guy is hated not others. Many others are celebrated for their contribution to our shared history. This is plain ridiculous that you say he was hated because he was a Mughal. You do know he faced more rebellion by non Muslims than anyone else. And for him India many not have been land of Hindus, but we obviously do not share that view.

I can not even begin to imagine you taking an benevolent view of someone if that somebody had destroyed your holy places (mecca madina etc) and built their own structures on top. This much even you know. Yet you carry on with this hypocrisy, hence lose all credibility in my view. I can only imagine your viewpoint is tainted by religion, and that too a a wahhabi type of ''strict'' interpretation.

If you had taken the view that judging historical personalities today is pointless and they were all different shades of grey, I'd have supported your view. But I suspect you have your own good and bad guys in history too

The REAL issue is religion. It was then so, it is so now for you. RELIGION SUCKS!

 

[[Bregs]]

This man tried to finish the native Indians, demolished temples and levied taxes on them. Thats why he is most hated amongst all Mughal emperors. Name of Aurangabad in maharashtra too should be changed

 

[Maira La]

The guy responsible for the Sikh massacre of 1984 and the party that he lead are widely despised in India today. So, shouldn't Aurangazeb also be despised? Logic 101.

Don't take pride in basic logic, let's take it a little further. :p

Aurangazeb didn't go kill the Guru with his bare hands. The guys pulling the strings were his generals and ministers. If Aurangazeb has to take the blame for the actions of his underlings, so must Indira. Logic 201!

 

[Josef K]

Don't take pride in basic logic, let's take it a little further. :p

Aurangazeb didn't go kill the Guru with his bare hands. The guys pulling the strings were his generals and ministers. If Aurangazeb has to take the blame for the actions of his underlings, so must Indira. Logic 201!

Actually, it's Rajiv. Not Indira, cuz she was already dead when the massacre happened (and in fact her death was the reason for the massacre). However, when I said "The guy responsible for the Sikh massacre", in my earlier post, I in fact meant Rajiv. What made you think, we Indians are ever gonna love Rajiv?So, as you say, both Aurangazeb and Rajiv need to take blame.

 

[Maira La]

Actually, it's Rajiv. Not Indira, cuz she was already dead when the massacre happened (and in fact her death was the reason for the massacre). However, when I said "The guy responsible for the Sikh massacre", in my earlier post, I in fact meant Rajiv. What made you think, we Indians are ever gonna love Rajiv?So, as you say, both Aurangazeb and Rajiv need to take blame.

And... why do you think Indira was assassinated by Sikhs?