Aurangzebs of 2008 try denying jihadi Aurangzeb of 17th cent.

Aurangzebs of 2008 try denying jihadi Aurangzeb of 17th cent.

Pictures of culture police destroying Aurangzeb exhibits at Lalit Kala Academy, Chennai, on 6 March 2008.













AURANGZEBS OF TODAY (8 March 2008)
B.RAMAN http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers27/paper2611.html

In a statement made after the July,2005, blasts in London organised by suicide terrorists of Pakistani origin, Mr.Tony Blair, the then British Prime Minister, spoke of the need to counter jihadi terrorism not only operationally through better intelligence, better physical security, better counter-terrorism operations etc, but also ideologically in order to draw the attention of the public to the pernicious ideas being spread by Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda jihadi organisations and counter them energetically.

2. Amognst such pernicious ideas are that there was no civilisation in the world before the advent of Islam, that the Muslims have a right to re-capture all lands which historically belonged to them, that the Muslims do not recognise national frontiers and ,therefore, have a right to wage a jihad anywhere in the world where Islam is in danger and that the Muslims have the religious right and obligation to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and use them to protect their religion, if necessary.

3. The Pakistani jihadi organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI), the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), which are members of Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF), project Aurangzeb as the greatest ruler in the history of the Indian sub-continent and describe their aim as the "liberation" of the Muslims of India and restoration of what they view as the golden era of Aurangzeb in the sub-continent.

4. This glorification of Aurangzeb was actually started by the Pakistan Government after the birth of Pakistan in 1947. The text-books got written and prescribed in schools by different Pakistan Governments depicted that there was no civilisation or culture in India before the Muslims came to the sub-continent and glorified Aurangzeb. In September 1996, Murtaza Ali Bhutto, the younger brother of Benazir Bhutto, was allegedly killed by the police of Karachi after he had returned from Islamabad, where he allegedly had a fierce quarrel with Benazir and her husband Mr.Asif Ali Zardari over his demand that he should be appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party. In a piece on the rule of Benazir, the "Economist" of London compared her to Aurangzeb.

5. This created a lot of interest among analysts over the influence of the Aurangzeb model on the minds of Pakistani rulers----political and military--- who grew up after its independence and studied the text-books, which glorified him. It is now recognised by imany that one of the reasons for the spreading prairie fire of jihadi terrorism in Pakistan is the pernicious influence of the Aurangzeb model on the mind-set of the Pakistani youth. Many of them, who are spreading havoc across Pakistan, see themselves as the Aurangzebs of today. Aurangzeb as well as bin Laden are their role models.

6. The overwhelming majority of the Indian Muslim youth, who remain intensely patriotic, have not let themselves be influenced by this pernicious veneration of bin Laden and Aurangzeb and their ideas, but recent events such as the involvement of one or two Indian Muslims in the UK with Al Qaeda, the role of two Indian Muslim youth in the attempted terrorist strikes in London and Glasgow in June last and the recent arrests of some Muslim youth of the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) in Karnataka indicate that some of these pernious ideas might have started winning adherents in the India Muslim community too---- in India as well as in the diaspora in the Gulf and the West.

7. Before this spreads further, it is important to counter this phenomenon ideologically. This is what some respected Muslim clerics and scholars, who had met recently at Deoband, had done. One must welcome their initiative in condemning terrorism. That is also what some activists against terrorism under Mr.Francois Gautier, a well-known French journalist living in India for many years, have been doing. Whereas the appeal of the Deobandi congregation was addressed to the Muslim community specifically, the anti-terrorism campaign of Gautier and his small, but devoted band of associates is addressed to all people----whatever be their nationality, religion, ethnicity etc. It seeks to educate them not only on the evils of terrorism, but also on the mental origin of it.

8. To understand the mental origin of the jihadi terrorism emanating from Pakistan, it is important to identify not only their present-day mentors such as bin Laden, the Pakistani jihadi leaders and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), but also their historical idols. Aurangzeb is one of their topmost historical idols. It is important to educate the people of India on the real nature of Aurangzeb, his policies and actions so that they do not get easily carried away by the way Aurangzeb's rule is depicted by the jihadi terrorists.

9. An exhibition organised by Gautier and his associates as part of this education process had a successful run in New Delhi, Pune and Bangalore. In Pune, over 100,000 people visited it. In none of these places, did the members of the local Muslim community view the exhibition as anti-Muslim or anti-Islam. Unfortunately, some members of the community in Chennai viewed it as anti-Muslim and demanded that the exhibition be discontinued. This has reportedly been done on the advice of the Police.

10. I had attended the inauguration of the exhibition on the opening day (March 3,2008) and spoke on the importance of understanding the pernicious ideas about Aurangzeb being spread by Pakistani jihadi organisations. I had seen all the exhibits before the inauguration and did not find any of them of a provocative nature. More than the paintings, what was so eloquent in the exhibition was the collection of scanned copies of the various orders issued by Aurangzeb during his rule. These documents were authentic and the scanned copies were made over a period of three years from a Mughul Archive in Rajasthan which, I was told, contain a wealth of documents relating to the Mughul period.

11. One of the contentions of those, who protested against the exhibition, was that raking up the past would create a communal divide in Tamil Nadu, which has been relatively free of it.One of the lessons of history has been that remaining silent on unpleasant periods in history leads to a repetition of such unpleasant experiences. That is why Western school children are taught about the evils of rulers like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin etc. That is why the Jewish people keep reminding themselves and the rest of the world about the holocaust. That was why some years ago Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French rightist leader, was severely criticised for denying the reality of the holocaust.

12. When we deny harsh truths of history, we are only playing into the hands of jihadi terrorists, who see themselves as the Aurangzebs of today.

13. The Annexure gives extracts from what foreign scholars, including scholars in Pakistan itself, have been saying on this subject of what a Pakistani scholar described as a creation of myths regarding the real nature of Muslim rule.When Pakistanis have themselves started realising the damage done to their society and country by this myth-making, leaders of our Muslim community should refrain from starting a similar myth-making exercise in India about the past.(8-3-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

ANNEXURE
From: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2007

"Aurangzeb or Aurangzib , 1618-1707, Mughal emperor of India (1658-1707), son and successor of Shah Jahan . He served (1636-44, 1653-58) as viceroy of the Deccan but was constantly at odds with his father and his eldest brother, Dara Shikoh, the heir apparent. When Shah Jahan fell ill in 1658, Aurangzeb seized the opportunity to fight and defeat Dara and two other brothers in a battle for succession. He imprisoned his father for life and ascended the throne at Agra with the reign title Alamgir [world-shaker]. A scholarly, austere man, devoted to Islam, he persecuted the Hindus, destroying their temples and monuments. He executed the guru of the Sikhs (see Sikhism ) when he refused to embrace Islam. Although the Mughal empire reached its greatest extent under Aurangzeb, it was also fatally weakened by revolts of the Sikhs, Rajputs, and Jats in the north and the rebellion of the Marathas in the Deccan. From 1682, Aurangzeb concentrated all his energies on crushing the Marathas, but his costly campaigns were only temporarily successful and further weakened his authority in the north. The Mughal empire fell apart soon after his death."

2.FROM THE WIKIPEDIA
"Pakistan Studies departments and curricula have been criticized by academics and scholars in Pakistan and the West, for propagating jingoist and irredentist beliefs about Pakistan's history and culture. While no scholar denies Pakistan's rich historical and cultural diversity, the Pakistan Studies groups are criticized for being insufficiently objective in its portrayal, particularly with regards to political Islam and the treatment of minorities such as Hindus and Christians in the country. Irredentism is manifested through claims of "eternal Pakistan" (despite the country being created from British India only in 1947), narrow and sectarian interpretation of Islam, downplaying the tolerant aspects of the religion and focusing on Islamic Fundamentalist interpretations (such as all banking being un-Islamic), and making accusations of dual loyalty on minority Hindus and Christians in Pakistan.[1] One survey even found out that Pakistan Studies textbooks include derogatory remarks against minority religious groups, and the generalized teaching of religious intolerance as acceptable.The Pakistan Studies textbooks have been used as locations to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy makers have attempted to inculcate towards their Hindu citizens as well as Hindus in India.

"A study by Nayyar & Salim concluded in 2003 that there is an increasing trend where children are taught Pakistan Studies as a replacement for the teaching of history and geography as full fledged disciplines. Previously, children were taught the very early pre-Islamic history of South Asia and its contribution to rich cultural diversity of modern-day Pakistan.This long historical perspective of Pakistan is absent these Pakistan Studies textbooks. Instead, children are now taught that the history of Pakistan starts from the day the first Muslim set foot in India. The study reported that the textbooks also had a lot of gender-biased stereotypes and other perspectives that "encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow Pakistanis and other nations, especially against religious minorities, as well as the omission of concepts ... that could encourage critical self awareness among students".

"According to Ayesha Jalal, "Pakistan's history textbooks amongst the best available sources for assessing the nexus between power and bigotry in creative imaginings of a national past." She points out authors whose "expansive pan- Islamic imaginings" detect the beginnings of Pakistan in the birth of Islam on the Arabian pensinsula. M.Ikram Rabbani and Monawwar Ali Sayyid's An Introduction to Pakistan Studies, a compulsory reading for first and second year college students studying for an F.A degree in history, begins with a chapter on the establishment of Pakistan based on a concept of Islamic sovereignty. "Allah alone is sovereign and the 'ruler of the Islamic State does not possess any authority of his own'. The coming of Islam to the Indian subcontinent was a 'blessing' since Hinduism was based on an 'unethical caste system'." M.D.Zafar's A Text Book of Pakistan Studies claims that Pakistan "came to be established for the first time when the Arabs under Mohammad bin Qasim occupied Sind and Multan'; by the thirteenth century 'Pakistan had spread to include the whole of Northern India and Bengal' and then under the Khiljis, Pakistan moved further south-ward to include a greater part of Central India and the Deccan'. [...] The spirit of Pakistan asserted itself', and under Aurangzeb the 'Pakistan spirit gathered in strength'; his death 'weakened the Pakistan spirit'."

"Jalal points out that even an acclaimed scholar like Jamil Jalibi questions the validity of a national history that seeks to "claim Pakistan's pre-Islamic past" in an attempt to compete with India's historic antiquity. K.Ali's two volume history designed for B.A students traces the pre-history of the 'Indo-Pakistan' subcontinent to the paleolithic age and consistently refers to the post-1947 frontiers of Pakistan while discussing the Dravidians and the Aryans.

"According to some author like Amar Jaleel "What is being taught to our children in the name of history and Pakistan Studies in schools is far from the truth" .


"Jalal points out the consistent religious bias in Pakistan Studies textbooks. "While 'the houses of the Muslims were more spacious, airy and open to light' that of the Hindus had 'small rooms, verandahs and less space open to sky [sic]' which 'shows the secret and exclusive attitude of Hindu mind [sic]'. For students who have had no contact with Hindus both statements, differences in style notwithstanding, can easily fuel a form of inverted bigotry. The more so since they are given abundant 'evidence' to underline the invidiousness of Hindu majoritarianism."

"used to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy-makers have attempted to inculcate towards the Hindus. Government-issued textbooks teach students that Hindus are backward and superstitious, and given a chance, they would assert their power over the weak, especially, Muslims, depriving them of education by pouring molten lead in their ears. The report adds that in these textbooks, students are taught that "Islam brought peace, equality, and justice to the subcontinent, to check the sinister ways of Hindus." The report adds that "In Pakistani textbooks "Hindus" rarely appears in a sentence without adjective such as politically astute, sly, or manipulative."

"A new curriculum for Pakistan Studies is proposed to be implemented from the academic year 2007. According to reports [5], the government has made "drastic changes" in the new Pakistan Studies curriculum, including new chapters on the Musharraf government's economic and privatisation policies and "enlightened moderation", and less biased explanations of the Two-Nation Theory and Partition. According to the report, the new National Curriculum for Pakistan Studies for grades IX and X explains the Two-Nation Theory and Pakistan's ideology "with specific reference to the economic and social deprivation of Muslims in India". According to an education ministry official quoted in the report, "An effort has been made to exclude all such material that promotes prejudice against the non-Muslims of pre-partition India."

"An earlier attempt to reform the curriculum failed in 2003, because of resistance by religious parties. The 2003 protests ultimately resulted in the removal of the education minister Zubeda Jalal. Pakistan's current education minister, ex-ISI director general Lt Gen (r) Javed Ashraf Qazi has called the anti-Hindu parts of the curriculum silly, and that "it was time to acknowledge realities instead of inciting hatred."

3.Pakistan's missile symbolism ( A commentary broadcast the BBC by Zaffar Abbas,its correspondent in Islamabad)

Pakistani officials say the successful test-firing of three of its surface-to-surface missiles in the last few days has confirmed the country's capability to strike deep inside enemy territory in the event of a war.

Interestingly, these tests have not only demonstrated the effectiveness of Pakistan's missile technology; the names given to these missiles are full of symbolism.
They suggest that Pakistan relates the present conflict in South Asia to the conflicts of the mediaeval period when Muslim warriors from Afghanistan frequently invaded India.

Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Abdali - these are the three ballistic missiles Pakistan test-fired in the last week.

But these are also names of three prominent Muslim warlords, or conquerors, who invaded India from Afghanistan between the 11th and 18th centuries in an attempt to expand their empires.

Historical histrionics

The medium-range Ghauri missile is Pakistan's answer to India's Prithvi missile, and here the symbolism is perhaps most interesting.

Muhammad Ghauri was a powerful Afghan warlord who in the 12th century had two fierce battles with the Hindu ruler of northern India, Prithviraj Chouhan.

Ghauri was defeated in the first battle and later on, he returned with a bigger army to achieve a convincing victory.

Although India insists that the name Prithvi given to its missile means "earth" and has nothing to do with any Hindu ruler of the past, Pakistan wants the world to believe otherwise.

Battle fetish
The other two missiles Pakistan tested during the week are also named after 11th and 18th-century Afghan conquerors, Mehmood Ghaznavi and Ahmed Shah Abdali.

Ghaznavi is described in history books as a temple-destroyer who attacked India 17 times.

Pakistan has never given any specific reason for naming these missiles after such historical figures.

But the symbolism is a clear reflection of the official mindset in the country.
It shows that for Islamabad, the present conflict with India is a continuation of the battles of the past between people described in Pakistani history books as just Muslim invaders and several of India's cruel Hindu emperors.
4.An article carried by the "Dawn" of Karachi on March 27,2005
The myth of history


By Prof Shahida Kazi

History is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in Pakistan. As a result, the subject has been distorted in such a way that many a fabricated tale has become part of our collective consciousness

DOES mythology have anything to do with history? Is mythology synonymous with history? Or is history mythology?

Admittedly, the line between the two is a very fine one. From time immemorial, man has always been in search of his roots. He has also been trying to find a real and tangible basis for the legends of ancient days ? legends that have become a part of our collective consciousness. As a result, we witness the quest for proving the existence of King Arthur, the search for whereabouts of the city of Troy, and many expeditions organized to locate the exact site of the landing of Noah?s Ark.
During the 60s and the 70s, there was a worldwide movement to prove that the gods of ancient mythologies did actually exist; they came from distant galaxies; and that mankind owed all its progress to such alien superheroes. Several books were written on the subject.

We, in Pakistan, are a breed apart. Lacking a proper mythology like most other races, we have created our own, populated by a whole pantheon of superheroes who have a wide range of heroic exploits to their credit.

But the difference is that these superheroes, instead of being a part of a remote and prehistoric period, belong very much to our own times. A seemingly veritable mythology has been created around these heroes, their persona and their achievements, which is drummed into the heads of our children from the time they start going to school. So deep is this indoctrination that any attempt to uncover the facts or reveal the truth is considered nothing less than blasphemous.

Here are some of the most common myths:

Myth 1
Our history begins from 712AD, when Mohammad bin Qasim arrived in the subcontinent and conquered the port of Debal.

Take any social studies or Pakistan studies book, it starts with Mohammad bin Qasim. What was there before his arrival? Yes, cruel and despotic Hindu kings like Raja Dahir and the oppressed and uncivilized populace anxiously waiting for a "liberator" to free them from the clutches of such cruel kings. And when the liberator came, he was welcomed with open arms and the grateful people converted to Islam en mass.
Did it really happen? This version of our history conveniently forgets that the area where our country is situated has had a long and glorious history of 6,000 years. Forget Moenjo Daro. We do not know enough about it. But recorded history tells us that before Mohammad Bin Qasim, this area, roughly encompassing Sindh, Punjab and some parts of the NWFP, was ruled by no less than 12 different dynasties from different parts of the world, including the Persians (during the Achamaenian period), the Greeks comprising the Bactrians, Scthians and Parthians, the Kushanas from China, and the Huns (of Attila fame) who also came from China, besides a number of Hindu dynasties including great rulers like Chandragupta Maurya and Asoka.

During the Gandhara period, this region had the distinction of being home to one of the biggest and most important universities of the world at our very own Taxila. We used to be highly civilized, well-educated, prosperous, creative and economically productive people, and many countries benefited a lot from us, intellectually as well as economically. This is something we better not forget. But do we tell this to our children? No. And so the myth continues from generation to generation.

Myth 2
Mohammad Bin Qasim came to India to help oppressed widows and orphan girls.
Because of our blissful ignorance of history, we don't know, or don't bother to know, that this period was the age of expansion of the Islamic empire. The Arabs had conquered a large portion of the world, comprising the entire Middle East, Persia, North Africa and Spain. Therefore, it defies logic that they would not seek to conquer India, the land of legendary treasures.

In fact, the Arabs had sent their first expedition to India during Hazrat Umar Farooq's tenure. A subsequent expedition had come to Makran during Hazrat Usman's rule. But they had been unsuccessful in making any in-roads into the region. Later on, following the refusal of the king to give compensation for the ships captured by pirates (which incidentally included eight ships full of treasures from Sri Lanka, and not just women and girls), two expeditions had already been sent to India, but they proved unsuccessful. It was the third expedition brought by Mohammad Bin Qasim which succeeded in capturing Sindh, from Mansura to Multan. However, because of the Arabs' internal dissension and political infighting, Sindh remained a neglected outpost of the Arab empire, and soon reverted to local kings.

Myth 3
The myth of the idol-breaker.
Mahmood Ghaznavi, the great son of Islam and idol-breaker par excellence, took upon himself to destroy idols all over India and spread Islam in the subcontinent.
Mahmud, who came from neighbouring Ghazni, Central Asia, invaded India no less than 17 times. But except Punjab, he made no attempt to conquer any other part of the country or to try and consolidate his rule over the rest of India. In fact, the only thing that attracted him was the treasures of India, gold and precious stones, of which he took care and carried back home a considerable amount every time he raided the country. Temples in India were a repository of large amounts of treasure at the time, as were the churches in Europe, hence his special interest in temples and idols.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not the kings, the Central Asian sultans who ruled for over 300 years and the Mughals who ruled for another 300 years, who brought Islam to the subcontinent. That work was accomplished by the Sufi Sheikhs who came to India mainly to escape persecution from the fundamentalists back home, and who, through their high-mindedness, love for humanity, compassion, tolerance and simple living won the hearts of the people of all religions.

Myth 4
The myth of the cap-stitcher.

Of all the kings who have ruled the subcontinent, the one singled out for greatest praise in our text books is Aurangzeb, the last of the great Mughals. Baber built the empire; Humayun lost it and got it back; Akbar expanded and consolidated it; Jahangir was known for his sense of justice; Shahjehan for his magnificent buildings. But it is Aurangzeb, known as a pious man, who grabs the most attention. The prevalent myth is that he did not spend money from the treasury for his personal needs, but fulfilled them by stitching caps and copying out the Holy Quran. Is there any real need for discussing this assertion? Anyone who's least bit familiar with the Mughal lifestyle would know how expensive it was to maintain their dozens of palaces. The Mughals used to have many wives, children, courtiers, concubines and slaves who would be present in each palace, whose needs had to be met. Could such expenses be met by stitching caps? And even if the king was stitching caps, would people buy them and use them as ordinary caps? Would they not pay exorbitant prices for them and keep them as heirlooms? Would a king, whose focus had to be on military threats surrounding him from all sides and on the need to save and consolidate a huge empire, have the time and leisure to sit and stitch caps? Let's not forget that the person we are referring to as a pious Muslim was the same who became king after he imprisoned his own father in a cell in his palace and killed all his brothers to prevent them from taking over the throne.

Myth 5
It was the Muslims who were responsible for the war of 1857; and it was the Muslims who bore the brunt of persecution in the aftermath of the war, while the Hindus were natural collaborators of the British.

It is true that more Muslim regiments than Hindu rose up against the British in 1857. But the Hindus also played a major role in the battle (the courageous Rani of Jhansi is a prime example); and if Muslim soldiers were inflamed by the rumour that the cartridges were laced with pig fat, in the case of Hindus, the rumour was that it was cow fat. And a large number of Muslims remained loyal to the British to the very end. (The most illustrious of them being Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.)

Furthermore, the Muslims did not lose their empire after 1857. The British had already become masters of most of India before that time, having grasped vast territories from both Hindu and Muslim rulers through guile and subterfuge.
The Mughal emperor at the time was a ruler in name only; his jurisdiction did not extend beyond Delhi. After 1857, the Hindus prospered, because they were clever enough to acquire modern education, learn the English language, and take to trade and commerce. The Muslims were only land owners, wedded to the dreams of the past pomp and glory, and when their lands were taken away, they were left with nothing; their madressah education and proficiency in Persian proved to be of no help. As a matter of fact, it was a hindrance in such changing times.

Myth 6
The Muslims were in the forefront of the struggle against the British and were singled out for unfair treatment by the latter.

Not at all. In fact, the first gift given to the Muslims by the British was in 1905 in the form of partition of Bengal (later revoked in 1911). The Shimla delegation of 1906 has rightly been called a command performance; the Muslims were assured by the viceroy of separate electorates and weightage as soon as their leaders asked for them. After that, the Muslim League came into being, established by pro-British stalwarts like the Aga Khan, Justice Amir Ali, some other nawabs and feudal lords. And the first objective of the Muslim League manifesto read: "To promote feelings of loyalty to the British government."

The Muslim League never carried out any agitation against the British. The only time the Muslims agitated was during the Khilafat Movement in the early 20s, led by the Ali brothers and other radical leaders. Not a single Muslim League leader, including the Quaid-i-Azam, ever went to jail. It was the Congress which continued the anti-British non-violent and non-cooperation movement in the 30s and 40s, including the famous "Quit India" movement, while Muslim League leaders continued to denounce such movements and exhorted their followers not to take part in them.

Myth 7
The Muslim League was the only representative body of the Muslims.

It is an incontrovertible fact that it was only after 1940 that the Muslim League established itself as a popular party among the Muslims. Prior to that, as evident in the 1937 elections, the Muslim League did not succeed in forming the government in any of the Muslim majority provinces. In those elections, out of the total of 482 Muslim seats, the Muslim League won only 103 (less than one-fourth of the total). Other seats went either to Congress Muslims or to nationalist parties such as the Punjab Unionist Party, the Sind Unionist Party and the Krishak Proja Party of Bengal.

Myth 8
Allama Iqbal was the first person to come up with the idea of a separate Muslim state.

This is one of the most deeply embedded myths in our country and the one which has been propagated by all governments. In fact, the idea that Muslim majority provinces of the north-west formed a natural group and should be considered a single bloc had been mooted by the British as far back as 1858 and freely discussed in various newspaper articles and on political platforms. Several variations of the idea had come from important public personalities, including British, Muslims and some Hindus. By the time Allama Iqbal gave his famous speech in 1930, the idea had been put forward at least 64 times. So, Iqbal voiced something which was already there, and was not an original dream. After his speech at Allahbad was reported, Allama Iqbal published a retraction in a British newspaper that he had not been talking of a separate Muslim sate, but only of a Muslim bloc within the Indian federation.

Myth 9
The Pakistan Resolution envisaged a single Muslim state.

The fact is that none of the proposals regarding the Muslim bloc mooted by different individuals or parties had included East Bengal in it. The emphasis had always been on north-western provinces, which shared common frontiers, while other Muslim majority states, such as Bengal and Hyderabad, were envisaged as separate blocs. So, it was in the Pakistan Resolution. The resolution reads: ?The areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the north-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states, in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

Leaving aside the poor and ambiguous drafting of the entire resolution, the part about states (in plural) is very clear. It was only in 1946, at a convention of the Muslim League legislators in Delhi, that the original resolution was amended, which was adopted at a general Muslim League session and the objective became a single state.

Myth 10
March 23, 1940 is celebrated because the Pakistan Resolution was adopted on that day. The fact of the matter is that the Pakistan Resolution was only introduced on March 23 and was finally adopted on March 24 (the second and final day of the session).

As to why we celebrate March 23 is another story altogether. The day was never celebrated before 1956. It was first celebrated that year as the Republic Day to mark the passage of the first constitution and Pakistan?s emergence as a truly independent republic. It had the same importance for us as January 26 for India. But when Gen Ayub abrogated the constitution and established martial law in 1958, he was faced with a dilemma. He could not let the country celebrate a day commemorating the constitution that he had himself torn apart, nor could he cancel the celebration altogether. A way-out was found by keeping the celebration, but giving it another name: the Pakistan Resolution Day.

Myth 11
It was Ghulam Muhammad who created imbalance of power between the prime minister and head of state, and it was he who sought to establish the supremacy of the governor-general over the prime minister and parliament.

When Pakistan came into being, the British government?s India Act of 1935 was adopted as the working constitution. And it was the Quaid-i-Azam himself who introduced certain amendments to the act to make the governor-general the supreme authority. It was under these powers that the Quaid-i-Azam dismissed the government of Dr Khan Sahib in the NWFP in August 1947 and that of Mr Ayub Khuhro in Sindh in 1948.
Besides being governor-general, the Quaid-i-Azam also continued as president of the Muslim League and president of the Constituent Assembly.

It was these same powers under which Mr Daultana?s government was dismissed in Punjab in 1949 by Khawaja Nazimuddin, who himself was dismissed as prime minister in 1953 by Ghulam Mohammad.

However, in 1954, a move was started by members of the then Constituent Assembly to table an amendment to the act, taking away excessive powers of the governor-general. It was this move which provoked the governor-general, Ghulam Mohammad, to dismiss the Constituent Assembly in 1954, and thereby change the course of Pakistan?s history.
These are some of the myths that have been drummed into our heads from childhood and have become part of our consciousness. There are scores more, pervading our everyday life. And there are many unanswered questions such as:

? What is Pakistan?s ideology and when was the term first coined? (It was never heard of before 1907.)
? Why was Gandhi murdered? (He was supposedly guarding Pakistan?s interest.)
? What is the truth about the so-called traitors, Shaikh Mujeeb, Wali Khan, and G.M. Syed?
? What caused the break-away of East Pakistan?
? Why was Bhutto put to death?
? Are all our politicians corrupt and self-serving?
? Why does our history repeat itself after every 10 years?
The answers to all these questions require a thorough study of history, not mythology. But history unfortunately is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in our country. It?s time things changed.

The myth of history -DAWN Magazine; March 27, 2005


Why did Aurangzeb destroy Hindu temples?
Vinod Kumar

Many historians today contend that "Aurangzeb did not indiscriminately destroy Hindu temples, as he is commonly believed to have done, and that he directed the destruction of temples only when faced with insurgency. This was almost certainly the case with the Keshava Rai temple in the Mathura region, where the Jats rose in rebellion; and yet even this policy of reprisal may have been modified, as Hindu temples in the Deccan were seldom destroyed. The image of Aurangzeb as an idol-breaker may not withstand scrutiny, since there is evidence to show that, like his predecessors, he continued to confer land grants (jagirs) upon Hindu temples, such as the Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple in Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Banaras, Umanand temple in Gauhati, and numerous others."

In the contemporary history there is no evidence that Hindu temples were demolished because of the rebellion by the Hindus. And secondly if the places of worship were destroyed solely due to rebellion, many Muslims including Aurangzeb's own brothers and sons also rose in rebellion against him, how many mosques did he destroy to seek revenge or put down rebellion?

Why were the orders issued to destroy the temples and schools of the Hindus?

A contemporary historian, Saki Mustai'dd Khan in his Ma'asir-i Alamgiri writes:
(The History of India as told by its own historians, vol. VII, pp. 183)

"On the 17th Zi-l kada 1079 (18th April 1669), it reached the ear of His majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and Benaras, but specially in the latter, foolish Brahmins were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and the students and learners, Mussulmans as well as Hindus, went there, even from long distances, led by desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. (Emphasis added to show cause)

"The "Director of the faith" consequently issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching
and practicing of idolatrous forms of worship. On the 15th Rabi-ul Akhir it was reported to his religious Majesty, the leader of the unitarians, that, in obedience to the order, the Government officers had destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benaras."

There is more about destruction of other temples. But at this time let us review the above.

Firstly, there is no mention of rebellion by the Jats or anyone else. The reason was simple -- the Brahmins were teaching "wicked sciences".

Secondly, if the Jats were in rebellion, how would the order to destroy the temples and schools of the infidels help contain the rebellion if the purpose was purely political? Any such act further inflame not only the Jats who allegedly were in rebellion but also other infidels; even those who were not part of the rebellion.

Thirdly, the Jats were not everywhere and they were not in rebellion all over, the order was a general order, not only to demolish the temples but also the schools, of not only of the Jats but all infidels.

The great shrines that commanded the veneration of the Hindus from all over India were specially the targets of his religious bigotry. Among others, these included the second temple at Somnath, the Vishwanath temple of Benaras, and the Keshava Rai temple of Mathura, the "wonder of the age" on which a Bundela rajah had lavished 33 lakhs of Rupees. The temple at Mathura was of such "a height that its gilded pinnacles could be seen from Agra." (History of Aurangzeb, Vol. 3. Jadunath Sarkar, pp. 175)

It is the common practice of "eminent historians" to label those historians who portray real picture of Muslim rule in India as "communal" historians. Will the "eminent historians" also call contemporary Muslim historians like
the one I have quoted above as "communal historian"?

According to this definition, all Muslim historians and chroniclers from Utbi on including Alberuni and Timurlang himself will be classified as "communal".

Aurangzeb was a "good and pious" Muslim. To give another example of devotion to Islam, let me cite another example which has nothing to do with the infidel Hindus.

I quote from Muntakhabu-l Lubab by Khafi Khan:

1. "In the former reigns one side of the coins had been adorned with the words of the creed and the names of the first four Caliphs; but as the coins pass into many unworthy places, and fall under feet of infidels, it was ordered
that this superscription should be changed."

2. "Since the reign of Emperor Akbar the official year of account and the years of the reign had been reckoned from the Ist Farwadi, when the sun enters Aries, to the end of Isfandiyar, and the year and the months were called Ilahi;
but resembled the system of the fire worshippers, the Emperor in his zeal for upholding the Muhameddan rule, (emphasis added) directed that the year of the reign should be reckoned by the Arab lunar year and months, and that the revenue accounts also the lunar year should be preferred to the solar. The festival of the solar new year was completely abolished."

Historians claim Aurangzeb was an Indian and should not regarded as a foreign ruler. True, Aurangzeb was born in India and this makes him an Indian. Then, what had Aurangzeb born in India, an Indian, descended from Mongol Turks had to do with Arabic Lunar Calendar other than that it was Islamic?

"Mathematicians, astronomers and men who have studied history, know that **** the recurrence of the four seasons, summer, winter, the rainy season of Hindustan, the autumn and spring harvests, the ripening of the corn and fruit of each season, the tankhwah of jagirs, and the money of the mansabdars, are all dependent upon the solar reckoning, and cannot be regulated by the lunar; still his religious majesty was unwilling that the Nauroz and the year and months of the magi should give their names to the anniversary of his succession."

Contemporary history leaves no doubt that Aurangzeb conducted the affairs of the State in accordance with the dictates of Islam. And for that matter Aurangzeb was not unique in destroying the temples of the infidels and neither was it limited to India. A practice of demolishing or breaking idols started by Prophet Abraham has continued to this day. Its latest manifestation being destruction of Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan. (http://vinod11220.tripod.com/buddhastatues.htm)

Some historians might say what they wish but it is not going to change the truth as the fruits and seasons are not going to change their system just because Islam follows the lunar calendar.

Aurangzeb was a pious and good Muslim. He is called a living pir. Rebellion by the Jats was not the reason for his order to demolish Hindus' temples. The reason was that these were the temples of the infidels.

End of matter
http://vinod11220.tripod.com/Aurangzebhindutemples.htm

Aurangzeb, A Zealot?

Vinod Kumar

Many historians have called Aurangzeb a fanatic and a zealot because he issued decree to demolish Hindu temples and forbade the practice of any religion other than his own. He imposed Jiziya tax on his Hindu subjects.

Poor Aurangzeb!

Historian have completely misunderstood Aurangzeb. He was one of the most pious Muslim rulers in Islamic history. He is reported to have memorized the entire Koran. Even though he was the Emperor of a vast Empire, he is reported to have lived by the income derived from sewing Muslim Prayer caps. He is also reported to have made copies of the Koran to supplant his income. While Muslim rulers were known for keeping harem of hundreds of women, he did not marry more than what Allah had ordained.

It is not without reason that he is called by the Muslim scholars as "Living Pir". There was not a "zealot" bone in his body and not a "zealot" thought in his mind. It is not without reason that in the Year Book of the Muslim World, in the biography section, Living pir and pious Alamgir Aurangzeb gets 29 lines and apostate Akbar just 5. (Nadir Shah 35, Babar 30, Mahmud of Ghazni 31)


It is true that too much is made of his imposing jiziya on his non-Muslim subjects -- people of the book included. Now, can a sensible and objective historian really blame him for this? If one is a Muslim and doesn't even follow the basic tenets of Islam, what kind of Muslim would one be called? When, on the day of Judgement, one goes in front of Allah, what answers would he give for his transgression of the Allah's laws? Aurangzeb was a good Muslim, he did not want to go to Hell. Why would he exempt the people of the book? Islamic Sharia lays no such exemption. Jiziya was initially imposed on the people of the book, anyway. Aurangzeb cannot change the laws of Allah. No human being ever had such authority and does not now.

And what is wrong with Jiziya, anyway? It is a Holy Tax.

It is simply ridiculous to call Aurangzeb a "Zealot" just because he imposed jiziya. If Hindus shastras called for imposing jiziya on Muslims, would not a good and pious Hindu do the same? Hindus are sore losers. They had lost the wars to the Muslims, why should they have any objections if the Muslim rulers follow Islamic rules and laws. And specially when such laws were made by God Himself.


Aurangzeb is called a Zealot because he ordered demolition of Hindu and Jain temples? It is all because of Hindus ignorance of Islam. They blame poor Aurangzeb for their own ignorance.

Those Hindu temples were abode of idolatry -- an abominable practice which Allah has condemned in harshest terms. Demolition of idols was started by Prophet Abraham and continued by Prophet Muhammad who on the occasion of his victory over Mecca demolished all the idols of the idolaters.

In Islam, "idolatry is worse than carnage". How can a good and pious Muslim ruler let such violation of Allah's dictates prevail in his rule? How can he let this practice prevail and then face Allah on the final day of judgement?

Aurangzeb tried his best to bring "The Only True Faith" to land of infidelity but these infidels do not understand "what is good for them" and instead of thanking Aurangzeb called him a "zealot". What perfidy?

One should be admiring him for following his religion.

Will Durant wrote:
"Aurangzeb cared for nothing for art, destroyed its 'heathen' monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the principal governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year (1679 - 80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faith, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed."

What was this culture and what was this art and monuments that Aurangzeb is accused of destroying? Why is he called a bigot and a fanatic?

Poor and ignorant Durant does not know that this art and culture represented the pre-Islamic period of jahiliyat of India. How can a "pious and living pir" Muslim let such jahiliyat continue in his rule? Is calling Aurangzeb a bigot and zealot and a fanatic really justifiable?

Many Hindus like to compare Aurangzeb with Akbar. Contrary to Aurangzeb, Akbar did not follow Islam and is regarded by most Islamic scholars as an apostate. He had even removed the Holy Jiziya tax on the non-Muslims. Is it any wonder that when he died his death was celebrated by orthodox Muslim ulema.

Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi in his Maktubat (folios 52-53b) wrote (about Akbar):
"In the previous generation, in the very sight of men, unbelievers turned to the way of domination, the rites of unbelief prevailed in the abode of Islam, and the Muslims were too weak to show forth the mandates of the faith. If they did, they were killed......

"Today, when the good tidings of the downfall of what was prohibiting Islam (i.e. the death of Akbar) and the accession of the king of Islam (i.e. Jahangir) is reaching every corner, the community of the faithful have made it their duty to be the helpers and assistants of the ruler and to take as their guide the spreading of the Sharia and strengthening of the community."

In short, it is wrong to call Aurangzeb a bigot or a Zealot. He was just a good and pious Muslim. A real Living pir. He did his best to impose THE ONLY TRUE FAITH TO THE LAND OF INFIDELITY.
http://vinod11220.tripod.com/Aurangzebnotazealot.htm

The Blackest Incident in the History of Bharat
Vinod Kumar

Maulana Qureshi, who is also Secretary of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, is reported to have said that the demolition of the structure at Ayodhya "is the blackest incident in the history of the country" and that "it will not be forgotten till justice is done and the rule of law is established". In response, A Surya Prakash in his article "Wounds on the Hindu Psyche" (Daily Pioneer, December 7, 2004) has given incidents that are far more horrendous than the demolition of Babri structure.
Surya Prakash gives the examples of how the temples at Somnath, Mathura and Varanasi -- among countless others -- were demolished and what reverence they held for the Hindus. Has Maulana Qureshi or any other Muslim ever contemplated how the Hindus might have felt -- or continue to feel -- when the icons of their religion were ruthlessly plundered and razed to the ground?
Let me cite just one more example of "the blackest incidents in the history of the country". The temple at Mathura demolished by Aurangzeb was not the first time it was demolished. A more "spectacular" and the first demolition was recorded by Utbi -- secretary to Mahmud Ghaznavi.
Utbi in his Tarikh-e-Yamini describes the siege of Mathura in these words:
"The Sultan next directed his attacks against the sacred city of Mathura. The city was surrounded by a massive stone wall, in which were two lofty gates opening on to the river. There were magnificent temples all over the city and the largest of them all stood in the center of it. The Sultan was very much struck by its grandeur. In his estimate it cost not less than 100,000,000 red dinars, and even the most skillful of masons must have taken 200 years to complete it. Among the large number of idols in the temples, five were made of pure gold, the eyes of one of them were laid with two rubies worth 100,000 dinars, and another had a sapphire of a very heavy weight. All these five idols yielded gold weighing 98,300 mishkals. The idols made of silver numbered 200……. He seized all the gold and silver idols and ordered his soldiers to burn all the temples to the ground. The idols in them were deliberately broken into pieces. The city was pillaged for 20 days, and a large number of buildings were reduced to ashes."
But Nehru calls Mahmud an admirer of art and architecture because before he plundered and burnt the temple at Mathura down he admired its beauty, and not only that he goes on to call Mahmud "was far more a warrior than a man of faith and like many others conquerors used and exploited the name of religion for his conquests."
But Mahmud not interested just in wealth, he had a more important duty to perform. All contemporary evidence shows that Mahmud was more a man of faith than anything else. It is not without reason that he is regarded as a champion of Islam and the Caliph Qadir Billah conferred on him the titles of "Yamin-ud-Daulah" and "Amin-ul-Millah".
Surya Prakash wrote how Mahmud turned down offer of large sums of wealth to spare the Somnath temple -- let me not repeat it here. Ferishta gives another similar example of Mahmud's religious convictions. Before his demolition of the temple at Thanesar -- another principal place of worship of the Hindus -- Raja Anundpal offered him "the amount of the revenues of that country shall be annually paid to Mahmood and a sum shall also be paid to reimburse him for the expense of the expedition, besides which on his own he will present him with fifty elephants and jewels to a considerable amount." As in the case of the offer at Somnath, Mahmud turned the offer down saying, as Ferishta writes: "The religion of the faithful inculcates the following tenet: 'That in proportion as the tenets of the Prophet are diffused, and his followers exert themselves in subversion of idolatry, so shall be their reward in heaven;' that, therefore, it behoved him, with the assistance of God, to root out the worship of idols from the face of all India. How then should he spare Thanesar?"
In contrast, the Hindus offered to relocate the Babri masjid to another location at their expense. They were not interested in demolition of the structure just in the site it stood upon.
But I have yet to hear any Muslim calling any of the destruction of thousands of Hindu temples -- even the ones at Somnath, Mathura, Varanasi, Thanesar -- by Muslim invaders and rulers from Kasim to Aurangzeb "the blackest incident in the history of the country".
Secular historians contend that the Muslims destroyed the Hindu temples for the wealth that the Hindus had accumulated in them.
This does not stand even the basic test of logic. While we can understand human greed but we fail to understand why one interested only in plunder would go to disfigure the stone idols and break them in pieces -- how does this enrich the one interested in wealth alone?
We can, for the sake of argument, accept than in fury of war one destroyed the stone idols but again why would one just interested in plunder of wealth ship the broken pieces of idols all the way to Ghazna to be kept in front of the main mosque so that the faithful can tread upon them as they enter. This only one who is interested in destroying the idolatry would do.
The true nature of Muslim rule in India was captured by Will Durant in his History of Civilization. Describing the rule of Aurangzeb, he wrote:
"Aurangzeb cared for nothing for art, destroyed its ‘heathen’ monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the principal governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year (1679 – 80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faith, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed."
Aurangzeb, like Mahmud, is an "important" figure in Indian History. He was, again like Mahmud, one of the most devout Muslims to rule India. He is reported to have memorized the entire Koran and regarded by the Muslims as Alamgir and "Living pir".
The Muslim invasions and rule of India is full of so many "blackest incidents in the history of the country" that is difficult to recount. Sadly, our Muslim brothers can see only the Babri structure.
Another anniversary of "the blackest day in the history of the land" has come and gone.
Given the grim history of the Muslim invasions and rule of India and the events leading to the demolition of the Babri structure, is it not about time to give up the rhetoric and come to the terms with reality? Muslims should read the history of Muslim invasions and rule as written by the contemporary Muslim invaders and historians and ask if what the Muslims did to the Hindus was done to them by the Hindus, how would they have felt?
End of matter
http://vinod11220.tripod.com/blackestday.htm