| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The Danish Embassy in India is located on Aurangzeb Road in New Delhi. So there is still a road in India that is named after the most ruthless and cruel of the many ruthless and cruel Muslim rulers, oppressor and mass-murderer of Hindus. Why is there a road by that name? Change it, for god's sake.
Placenames are not forever. Burma becomes Myanmar (though Burma Shave jingles are immortal, and cannot be touched). Saigon becomes Ho Chi Minh City. Stalingrad becomes Volgograd, and Leningrad reverts to Sankt Peterburg. Bombay becomes Mumbai. Ceylon, Sri Lanka. So why in god's name does "Aurangzeb Road" have to stay?
Would that modern, bustling young Hindus, all those computer whizzes we keep reading about, would not ape the Western world's young in their indifference to their own history, and especially in this damn fear among Hindus abroad of being accused of narrow-minded communalism.
Muslims invaded India. They destroyed tens of thousands of Hindu and Buddhist artworks. They killed, over time, 60-70 million Hindus. They had a deplorable effect on Indian civilization, interrupting its natural and healthy evolution with mass murder and rapine on a colossal scale. They forced the conversion to Islam of many millions of Hindus. These are the ancestors of today's Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India itself. Those descendants should recognized this; so should the lucky Hindus whose ancestors managed to escape forced conversion -- possibly because as Hindus they continued to be the jizyah-paying stratum that the Muslims wished to preserve. After all, if everyone forcibly became a Muslim, who would pay for things?
It was only under the British, and because of people such as Sir William -- "Oriental" -- Jones, that the sympathetic study of India's pre-Islamic and non-Islamic past was undertaken and rediscovered by Hindus themselves. Whatever other high crimes or misdemeanors may be attributed to British colonialism, forcing people to forget their own pasts was not one of them -- that is a feature of Islamic conquest.
The conquest continues. In Kashmir, in Pakistan, and in Bangladesh today, there are attacks all the time, on Hindus (and Sikhs, and Christians, and even on the occasional Buddhist in Bangladesh). They are almost never reported outside of India itself. And there, in fact, a ruling elite downplays them, determined to show how very forward-looking it is, how far from the supposed crime of "communalism." In Indian terms, “communalism” is coming to mean an awareness of the history and threat and permanent menace of Islam. This is maddening.
Indians abroad have the leisure to see the history of India without fear of being labelled "communalists." It is they who should tutor others in what Islam has meant for India. Would that those who are the Muslim descendants of Hindus who were forcibly converted (either on pain of death, or because of the intolerable conditions to which they were subject by Muslim masters) would bethink themselves, and would realize how it is that they "became Muslims." Indeed, would that they were able to jettison the belief-system of the conqueror. Whether they revert to Hinduism or choose another religion, or none at all, is not the most important thing.
The Western world, and many who consider themselves too "advanced" for this kind of thing even in India, deplore and what's more, mock those who wish to restore the Hindu temple at Ayodhya. They should not be so quick to do so. Before the mocking, and the distancing, and the inability to comprehend the great damage inflicted on the civilization of India by the Muslim invaders, who collectively showed less interest (save for Al-Biruni, a singular personage) in the Hindu civilization of India than such English scholars as Sir William Jones all by himself, such people should study up a bit on what the claims, the justified claims, of those who are dismissed as part of some "fanatical" Hindutva really are. The more one studies the matter, the more sympathetic to those who are part of that movement to draw attention to, and here and there undo, the great crimes committed in the name of Islam, everywhere that Islam's power reached in India, right into The Deccan.
So as part of that effort, a question: why memorialize a killer like Aurangzeb? Why not make a little statement, by removing his name?
Posted by Hugh at February 24, 2007 8:39 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Why not indeed.
Sadly, I don't see this happening--at least in our lifetime. One cannot expect the Indian people to be so bold as to change this street name when they barely respond to the near daily brutal attacks from the adherents of the religion of peace within their own borders.
Indeed, Sheik Gilani Lane exists in the commonwealth of Virginia, U.S.A. Why? Because except for a handful of outraged citizens, no one has the courage to ruffle the feathers of their muslim neighbors. And then there are the Christian apologists who insist that the Sheik Gilani who is memorialized in that street sign is not the person Daniel Pearl was en route to visit when he was so viciously murdered, rather, it is a benign cleric from the 11th century of the same name. Did they get that information from the residents of Sheik Gilani Lane? No. But they are sure nonetheless.
It is all so sickening.
Posted by: IrishEi![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 24, 2007 10:06 AM
I recommend that they change the name from Aurangzeb Road to Akbar Road. Akbar was the intellectually curious Mogul emperor who ultimately transcended Islam altogether. He would convene meetings of various religious adepts including Hindu yogis, Sikhs, Jain ascetics, Christians from the Portuguese enclaves and various Muslim scholars including the unorthodox from among the Sufis and Shias. It was his attempt to find the truth about religion. He also showed favor toward his Hindu subjects, appointed them to high office and abolished the jizya (later reinstated by Aurangzeb).
Incidentally, at the same that they were plundering the Hindus, the Arabs were not reluctant to take credit for many of the great Hindu achievements in science and math. The so-called Arabic numbers were really of Indian origin including zero. Algebra, which all of our willfully misinformed intellectuals attribute to the Arabs was largely developed by great Hindu mathematicians such as Brahmagupta. When combined with the ideas of the Greek geometers and of Diophantus modern algebra was the result.
Posted by: RBLA at February 24, 2007 10:18 AM
Akbar was the one who relieved the Hindus of the obligation of paying the Jizyah. Akbar was a true syncretist -- in other words, not a true Muslim. For his benign treatment he is remembered fondly by Hindus. For his benign treatment of Hindus, he is recalled, if at all, with scorn by Muslims.
Posted by: Hugh at February 24, 2007 10:52 AM
Akbar Akbar!
Posted by: remote_control at February 24, 2007 2:37 PM
Hugh, if you think its so easy to change it, you are indulging in naivety. A whole political issue even an election could be decided simply on the name change of that road. IN Gujarat changing Ahmedabad back to Karnavati (original Hindu name before 'Ahmed' ransacked the city n changed its name) without political backlash. Ultimately, the decision was scrapped even though the state is helmed by the most vociferous and shrewd of Hindutva-minded politicians, namely Narendra Modi.
Posted by: Tushar Saxena at February 24, 2007 4:36 PM
I have no problem with roads or other sites being named for historical figures who had a great influence on a nation, even if that influence was evil. Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it. So if Aurangzeb Road was the original name when this road was laid out, let it stay and put up a plaque describing the deeds of Aurangzeb so people will remember.
In the US, we have many towns and streets named for thoroughly evil individuals. Jackson, Mississippi for instance is named for Andrew Jackson, the exterminator of Indians. He is also on the 20 dollar bill. So what? There is no denying his influence on US history. Right now, there is an asinine drive by the politically correct to force Southerners to remove all symbols of their Confederate history and rightful struggle for independence. This is inexcusable.
The Muslims were adept at changing the names of places they found offensive (Medina, Al Quds, Instanbul and almost every other city in Anatolia etc.) and we should never become like them. On the other hand, if the road already existed and had a name before it was called "Aurangzeb" then it should revert back to its original name, as should Karnavati (Ahmedabad) and the cities I mentioned above.
Posted by: Provoslavni at February 24, 2007 5:42 PM
One last example. Baghdad was originally Seleucia. It was founded by and named for the Seleucids who are rightly hated by Jews and Christians (the Maccabees and Channukah etc.) but I would still prefer Seleucia to the Islamic name "Baghdad".
Posted by: Provoslavni at February 24, 2007 5:47 PM
Remote, That would be 'Akbar hu Akbar'.
At any rate, I think both you and Hugh are mistaken. Akbar was highly overrated, and shone only in comparison to both his predecessors and successors. He had major character faults, which have been listed here. Although one might think this site to be a polymic Hindu site, the references are all there below to historians like Vincent Smith and Col. James Todd.
On the issue of names, Aurangzeb Road is where Delhi's diplomatic enclave is, and many embassies are based there, not just Denmark. And Delhi does have an Akbar Road, if I remember right. Problem is larger - in Marathwada, the heart of Maharashtra, the main city there is named 'Aurangabad', and attempts by the Shiv Sena to have it renamed have gone nowhere (although in Marathi, the city is called Khadki). And there are others - Prayag, where the Ganga and Yamuna come together - being called Allahabad.
And like Tushar pointed out above, it has been impossible to rename Ahmadabad Karnavati, but not due to local Gujarat politics, but rather, due to opposition from the central government, which had no problems with Bombay becoming Mumbai, Calcutta becoming Kolkata, Madras becoming Chennai and Bangalore becoming Bengelaru. All these name changes are as meaningful as Vienna being renamed Wien, Moscow becoming Moskva, Belgrade becoming Beograd or Rome becoming Roma.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 24, 2007 6:45 PM
All streets named for muslims should be renamed to names like "richard the lionheart," Charles Martel, or Jan Sobieski.
Posted by: senatortombstone at February 24, 2007 8:30 PM
OT
Police protect girls forced to convert to Islam
at February 25, 2007 3:26 AM
Akbar may have been both cruel and amoral in his personal life, as was unfortunately, true of most power wielders in his time (and is our time so different?). However, every history I have read concludes that he was by no means a "fanatical Muslim." He showed favor to various Hindus and was quite willing to make use of and reward talent of whatever origin. He was detested by the ulama and his religion was not Islam - it might be called "Akbarism". It was a cult of personality and a precursor to modern Kemalism in Turkey.
Oddly enough, Akbar is similar to another great conqueror in the preceding century: the Ottoman sultan Mehmed, conqueror of Constantinople. Mehmed was quite willing to make use of Islam's fanatical warlike ideology to achieve his objectives. He was cruel and treacherous, but all indications are that he was no fanatical Muslim - he was a follower of a Persian dervish who preached a syncretistic Muslim-Christian theology and who was executed by the grand Mufti as a heretic. He is even said to have "lit candles" and studied Christian theology with a number of Christian priests.
However, Mehmed, unlike Akbar never dared openly challenge the Muslim establishment.
Posted by: RBLA at February 25, 2007 12:32 PM
When fighting murderous thugs, you must become one if you intend to win.....Forget this "win their hearts and minds" bs......
....it is time for the western world to become more vicious in order to rout the Islamic terrorists.....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 27, 2007 6:47 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)