But it is our choice to remain under the shadow and in past or come out of it and stay in the present. You seem to be a comfortable prisoner of the past. 

usha manohar wrote:

anil wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

We mist be  objective in assessing Aurangzeb. He was a great soldier well versed in principles of war. He ruled the greatest empire in the world from Tashkent to Assam and deep south. He was not lkre Chengiz khan who butchered 10 million people yet is considered great. AurNgzeb banned Sati and during his second part of his reign stopped destroying temples. He also felt Sorry for Guru Gobind . This is related in the zafarnama. AurNzeb dserved " The great" title. MY mind is clear.

It may be right that he felt sorry for Guru Gobing Singh. But why he didn't felt sorry for Guru Teg Bhadur, who was murder at Chandni Chowk in front of residence of Auragzed, Red fort.

The problem is most of the so called good deeds attributed to Aurangzeb began through the advent of internet and some class of people who were carefully selected to change public opinion. No man is totally evil or good. Aurangazeb was more evil  than most , there is no two opinion about that ...about the sati issue, it is never mentioned in any of the older history books that we studied but now it is being brandished about 

He most probably banned sati practice because he liked the women to keep for himself!! But anyway, can anyone give proof of Aurangzeb being the one to ban the sati practice??? I never read about this one of his many 'virtuous' deeds!

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

anil wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

We mist be  objective in assessing Aurangzeb. He was a great soldier well versed in principles of war. He ruled the greatest empire in the world from Tashkent to Assam and deep south. He was not lkre Chengiz khan who butchered 10 million people yet is considered great. AurNgzeb banned Sati and during his second part of his reign stopped destroying temples. He also felt Sorry for Guru Gobind . This is related in the zafarnama. AurNzeb dserved " The great" title. MY mind is clear.

It may be right that he felt sorry for Guru Gobing Singh. But why he didn't felt sorry for Guru Teg Bhadur, who was murder at Chandni Chowk in front of residence of Auragzed, Red fort.

The problem is most of the so called good deeds attributed to Aurangzeb began through the advent of internet and some class of people who were carefully selected to change public opinion. No man is totally evil or good. Aurangazeb was more evil  than most , there is no two opinion about that ...about the sati issue, it is never mentioned in any of the older history books that we studied but now it is being brandished about 

He most probably banned sati practice because he liked the women to keep for himself!! But anyway, can anyone give proof of Aurangzeb being the one to ban the sati practice??? I never read about this one of his many 'virtuous' deeds!

Neither have I Kalyani, it is the Secular Historians who brought about the change in the character and personality of Aurangazeb and for that matter they changed historical facts as well to suit the rulers of the day ..

Sati, the act of burning the wife alive on the funeral fire of her husband was abolished by Britishers, this is what majority of us know. However, the fact that Aurangzeb in 1666 issued an order to outlaw Sati is not remembered at all. The great deed towards the Hindu women which even the Great Akbar could not do was done by Emperor Aurangzeb.

The above is randomly selected from the many such posts in Internet. The thank you pals will not agree as usual but other members may like to also go to Internet if they want unbiased information..

Will you please give link,so that all members can discuss ?

please type Aurangzeb sati ban in the google search engine and whole host of sites will become available. Were you till now discussing just like that.

If you were to do some research on these links and blog/articles you will notice that none of them are from.history books but written by modern day historians in the recent years after 1990s..

So what is the issue? Truth was written only before 1990. When internet became available people started writing on it. 

There are so many truth written in the history that even Google feels happy returning few of them- just typed Aurangzeb in Google's search bar and what appeared is as follows

https://aeon.co/essays/the-great-aurangzeb-is-everybodys-least-favourite-mughal

Fair enough. Now give your view points in a balanced manner. You only are thrilled at negatives and feel your job is over.