It does not matter if it is built on old hindu temple-already we had episode of Babri Masjid.

LOL........

Stirring up another controversy are we, RBSI???

I love Seeta Ram's paintings. Period. No agenda here. Shall I delete this ??

NO PLS DONT DELETE........wot rubbish! 1000 people will say 10000 things........dont be too bothered i think this is damn cool and it rocks! keep on at it!

Ah! I said that in jest... sorry if you felt offended...

Ok. I dont find anything surprising or controversial here. All of us know Aurangzeb and many other Muslim invaders destroyed temples and built mosques in their place....this is a plain and simple historical fact. There are hundreds of historical references all over. I guess it has become politically incorrect only in recent times to even mention it. But the fact is......this happened hundreds of years back like so many other things which shouldnt have happened. I guess we should face history squarely and learn from its mistakes and move on....ofcourse with malice to none.

Not really Anand....I just wouldnt want a slugfest in a place for objective discussion.

RBSI,well said about facing historical facts squarely in the face.....keep it up!

There is absolutely nothing offensive in stating the truth. We should know our defeats along with our victories. I will try and look up this one book about Sultan Mohamed Ghazni written by a muslim author and post the reference here one day. Its an old book so I have to locate in the Rare Books section of the University. The author was so truthful and so honest about the crimes that were committed. There are different types of genocide, I usually refer to destroying temples and building mosques on them as Cultural Genocide. No one is pointing fingers. It happened, its the truth, Its historical fact, and should be presented without fear in an academic setting. Only then will the flow of knowledge take place. Good job RBSI.

I agree with Monica Sharma...A true aficionado of history has to face historical facts and be amused by them... how can any part of history with enough evidence to substantiate its correctness be termed as controversial, purely on the basis of sentiments expressed by a particular community?...

Well said Azaan, your comment reminds me of writings of Dr. Salim Mansur, an Indian Muslim academic, someone who I have always admired. I wrote to him once, to let him know how much I admired his spirit to speak the truth and put forth historical facts without denials or white-washing what had happened. He often got threats from fanatics. He replied, was very gracious and humble. He told me of his different inspirations which included Tagore and Swami Vivekanada. He ended his reply with "I cannot help it, I have to speak the truth, I am proud to be Indian." Cheers.

Aside from the essentialized 'theology of iconoclasm', felt to be intrinsic to the Islamic religion, we must recognize a lesser known fact of our history, that temple desecration was an institutionalized form of political assertion since way back in the 6th century AD. In AD 642, Pallava King Narasimhavarman I looted the image of ganesha from the Chalukyan captial of Vatapi. Early medieval Indian history is about with such instances. Perhaps RBSI can dig out some more information on this.

Am i relieved,this has led to a more educated and academic exchange of view-points....!

@RBSI."I guess it has become politically incorrect only in recent times to even mention it." Ditto! About 5 years ago Pakistani authorities demolished a 500 year old Guru Ram Das temple in Rawalpindi to widen a road that could also have been widened without demolishing it... the Indian media did not even mention it in whispers. Twisted Political correctness!!!

I had Visited mathura....Krishnas Birth place is Awsome....and even saw the door of the prison which was in the mosque

Monica : You're telling me !! This is truly an epic event....and lets hope it continues in the same tenor.

:)

Same Thing hapenned with the martand temple in kashmir.....Vintage photograps available ...but now god knows

yes is a mathura .....

to Anand Balaji and Rare Book Society of India. It is not Rare Book Society of India that is starting a controversy here, Anand. It was started by Aurangzeb who could not find an inch of space in this vast country stretching from Himalayas to Kanya Kumari except this site. In any case it is our history and we accept it, but let us not shy away from it either. And RBSI should not delete the comment. Let us accept our history, right or wrong. We can judge it but we cannot erase it either from the land or from our memory.

@Vikram Singh: You are correct, it was done and the temple would be looted, however the difference is that the "murti" would be reinstalled in the kingdom of the victor. That is the difference.

@Mr.Sumerendra Vir Singh Chauhan .Mr.Vikram Singh. My slapping my son does not give any one else a license to also hit him, and that too with a bat. That perverted bigot Aurangzeb had no business to harm those temples, even though we were transferring the idols in some rare cases that you have mentioned, and I also have in my knowledge.

Sumerndra, Vikram & Shyam, Guys, Must take both sides into account. Aurangzeb according to the muslims was a good pious king who adhered to the tenets of Quran unlike his great grandfather Akbar The Great. That is the muslim side of the picture. Our side is that Akbar was The Great, coz he was tolerant and realised that he cannot rule over India and be accepted as one of us, without winning the goodwill of the majority. Besides History is always written by the victors, world over. either the country is occupied or it is liberated, depending on which side you are. Lets accept that even Aurangzeb is considered as the last of the 6 Great Mughals and then the rest are mini mughals.

Good point Pulin.

Ab Bhaiya ......Porey Hindustan man ( North India ) main ye huaa hai, Mugals ne kiya hai ....ye too aab bhee Bhaiya sahana hoga

@ Mr. Pulin Trivedi. I admire your reasons, but do not agree with them. Many factors are needed to be accounted while analysing history and historical figures. The complete reign of Mugal dynasty could be summarized in four words: Loot, Rape, Arson and Forcible-conversion. By no standards are these signs of a good rule by any of the pre-Mugal invaders, 6 great Mugals or even the post Aurangzeb pygmy forgettable Mugals. Aurangzeb could be pious for some semi-literate mulla inspired bigots, but no sensible human assessment with present day standards would hold him at esteem. Turkey is being asked to apologize for Armenian killings. Turkey was a victorious invader then. But by today’s standards of civility, it was a gross violation of multiple principles! Similarly, the Spanish(in Americas) and Portuguese(in Brazil) crusades of the cross, in which millions got butchered and three civilisations razed, can not just be seen today as an act of a victorious invader. Those again were violations of multiple principles! Aurangzeb ‘s industrial zeal to convert temples of importance into mosques was not just an act of appurtenance, even by Islamic standards , for the adhereration to which he is being praised, ‘a place where idolatry is practiced (read Temple) , consider it most unfeasible for even Namaz….. ‘ says the Koran. So even by the actual standards of semi-literate mulla, Aurangzeb was not as pious as he is being projected. Politically, this man lived enough to see the dismantling and demise of the largest geographical area that Muslims ever in India.

Why so serious? I see a lot of hurt and anger here... ouch. As for people talking about objectivity etc... ha ha.

I am wondering why these people are not on Television debates? We need more people like this out there giving such amazing opinions and facts. I think RBSI is becoming more of a family, where we can discuss topics without offending anyone, its really great.

@Shyam Malick: I feel that you are confusing between the 5 dynasties of Delhi Sultanate and the Mughals. The British looted and carried away the riches of this country to England. the cloud formed over this country which was towed to rain over England. The Mughals had adopted this country as their own and did not tow the cloud to Uzbekistan/Ferghana/Central Asia to rain there. It rained very much here. So the question of loot does not arise when the riches of the country stayed in the country. Rape - which ruler in the world has not indulged in it - the question is of degrees. Arson - Nero set Rome afire, whereas I do not now which Mughal set Delhi afire. Just as we read Abul Fazal and Badauni to get a balanced view of Akbar's reign, may I recommend reading The Great Mughals by Bamber Gascoigne, in case you have yet to read it. Could also check out the section re taxation from Ain-i-Akbari to see how kind or cruel the 3rd Mughal was.

@ Mr.Pulin Trivedi. I am not confusing between any dynasties. I am well aware about the intentions with which the Muslim invaders, starting from Mohammad bin Quasim to Nadir Shah, and to Babar came to India. You may also recall that Mugals had not land of nativity, they were the products out of the alliances of local women, especially of the Afghan-Uzbek region and marauding Mongol fathers. Besides geographically and even climate wise, the plains of India are much hospitable that the regions from their mothers were picked from. Babar was not fond of 'Bharat Mata' to invade and then land in India. He experienced unprecedented comforts here! The chronicles of court jesters or sycophants that you are referring are not trustable documents. Besides, the research of history requires a lot of lateral thinking, and not subjugation to any one description or any second hand collection The so called secular justifications of excesses by sighting examples of Nero or bracketing all rulers as rapists could be comforting to you; it discomforts me a lot when I observe such devises to white wash the historical facts, to glorify rabid bigots. The discussion here started with the mention of the fact that Aurangzeb destroyed temples to build mosques, which he did. He and all Mugals not only destroyed temples of all levels of importance, but also butchered people of the local creeds. No amount of generalization can either obscure the facts, or absolve those villains of their crimes.