@SaketGokhale This is absolutely shocking. Tomo they may claim I smelled beef curry from outside and complain abt the same. They may laugh today but wait, karma ll not leave them.
@SirPareshRawal You don't have to be good n nice to be some people. Be a good human being, that's bare min tenet to live in this world. But we can't expect such things from a 3rd grade actor n a chaddi Sanghi hatemonger like you.
2/2
Neither the British nor the Mughals did India a great favor. Both were invaders who engaged in imperialism. As Ashis Nandy said, the colonized often seek to justify colonization to feel its supposed benefits, leading to the conclusions we draw today.
The fact is, both were monarchies, and monarchy, by nature, is oppressive. However, good things did happen during their rule, which we shouldn't overlook. It is essential to present both sides. History is about dead men and is best left as it is—without imposing moral judgments about how events should have unfolded.
Communalism arises when history is distorted, and figures are selectively labeled as villains or heroes through cherry-picking.
There's no one denying Mughals were "invaders". Lesser evil & bigger evil discussion is pointless. Name doesn't matter, as monarchy itself is immoral concept. They are products of their time, shaped by circumstances rather than inherent virtue or vice. Neither good nor bad.
It wasn't a religious war but a war of power money and land. Because countless Hindus worked under Mughals and most were upper caste Hindus. History is not read to show one side , other side wrong, categorise one side right and other side wrong. History is not read with intent "okay how to colourise". History is not read with the idea of finding "okay whose side author took".
History is awkward, uncomfortable and cannot exist in binary world of thinking. History will make you feel angry, sad, happy, proud etc. Show everything thus, don't remove haldi ghati. Mewat, now 90% Muslim, converted after Raja Nahar Singh (r. 1372–1404). Zia-ud-din Barani records their ancestors killing 100,000 Delhi Sultanate forces. Highlight that. Also highlight hyderabad muslim massacre. The 1948 Hyderabad Muslim Massacre saw Hindu fanatics forcibly convert Muslim women, branding them with Hindu symbols, causing lasting trauma. (Pandit Sunderlal Committee Report)
Babar came defeating Ibrahim Lodi. Could he not spare lodi for being muslim and gone against hindus together? Shah Jahan tried to kill Aurangzeb using female Tatar guards, but Aurangzeb outmaneuvered him and imprisoned him. (Bernier) Your favourite Sambhaji even revolted against his father Shivaji. Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj cannot be, shouldn't be or I don't think so would be happy to be compared to son Sambhaji Maharaj.
In monarchy everyone wants power alone at any cost for which pragmatism. Nizam Ali Khan as a result gave donations to brahmin priests. Allah Upanishad was composed in Mughal raj. Mughal raj saw akbar din i illahi. Tulsidas composed Ramayana too. Persian texts of Ramayana came by Dara Shikoh.
Talk about Aurangzeb. But both sides with no political intent definitely not divide and rule. Else you are becoming what you hate. Aurangzeb employed Hindus, granted land to Brahmins, protected some temples, and consulted ascetics, yet he also destroyed temples, reimposed jizya, banned festivals, and executed Guru Tegh Bahadur. He waged harsh wars, suppressed Marathas, alienated Rajputs, and drained the economy, accelerating the Mughal Empire’s decline and deepening religious divisions.
When Hinduism is used for political agendas, it loses its depth. Some people try to turn it into a tool of supremacy and exclusion, but they miss its most important teaching Advaita Vedanta, or the idea that everything is one. Hinduism is not about dividing people; it is about unity and self-awareness. It does not need political approval or validation, nor does it seek to exclude others.
I cannot believe that our Hindu gods, who represent wisdom and higher consciousness, would approve of the BJP-RSS version of Hinduism. Hinduism is not about domination it is about understanding.
Hinduism needs thinkers, not political opportunists in saffron. To revive its culture, people should read sacred texts instead of political speeches. It’s about self-discovery, not domination.
@RadhikaBarman5 Brilliant write up. Spot on. Circumstances of those time defined the king n his actions. It was never meant to be Muslim vs Hindus. Bollywood, politicians are milking for their own benefit. Sadly.