Speaking in Bengaluru at Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha, the RSS General Secretary referred to Aurangzeb's return to mainstream political discourse in last few weeks.
Akbar wanted to create one religion for all the communities of India, while Dara Shikoh did not want to create a religion, he wanted to unite religious communities.
Vandana Menon of ThePrint was awarded for her report on how an SDMC engineer arrived at a conclusion about Dara Shukoh’s burial spot & whether experts agree with his theory.
In 'Venetian In Court’, Marco Moneta writes about Nicolò Manucci who came to India and started his career as chief artilleryman in Dara Shukoh’s fratricidal battle against Aurangzeb.
In 'Understanding Mughal India', Meena Bhargava writes about how Aurangzeb patronised several Hindu institutions & was supported in the war of succession by Rajputs.
Bringing in the government whenever something goes wrong is a bad solution, and not in tune with the basic idea that religious affairs are not the business of the state.
Indian imports from China continue to grow significantly. India has taken steps to stabilise ties with China and recent months eased investment curbs in certain sectors for Chinese-linked firms.
Ottawa has handed over execution functions of critical defence projects to a CEO-led organisation for reducing procurement timelines and making it solely accountable for outcomes.
Diljit Dosanjh-starrer Satluj doesn’t blame any political party or individual politicians. We only know the demographic in Punjab it’s bound to trigger the most.
This showcases that when Mr. Ibn Khaldun Bharati tries his hand at counterfactual history, few can rival the quality of his thinking, the quality of his imagination, the quality of his writing. His understanding of the grandeur of Indic civilization is awesome, and this essay is glowing with his deep affinity for this great civilization. One can also sense his profound sense of loss regarding Dara Shukoh. What if Dara had not lost to Aurangzeb!
The wise will find it hard to miss how any vision of a ‘unified’ Bharata, ancient, medieval (‘Mughal’), or modern, is inevitably one infused with Sanatana values, ethics, and philosophy.
While this particular speculation on ‘what-if’ is more accurately ‘an exception that proves the rule’ (as Skanda’s comment below mine argues), it is high time that the Bharatiya public, left, right, centre, progressive or conservative, realised that the constructive way forward can only be Ramrajya.
This piece is essentially a mourning letter dressed as history. Every paragraph is calibrated to make you feel the loss of what could have been, rather than interrogate what actually was.
It never asks the more important question — why, in 1500 years, has the Dara template been repeatedly executed by its own people, while the Aurangzeb template gets mosques, textbooks, and street names? The answer makes this entire ‘What If’ exercise redundant.
This ‘What If Dara’ fantasy is the intellectual equivalent of citing one gentle wolf to defend the pack. The pack’s track record speaks louder.
Dara isn’t proof that Islam can reform. Dara is proof of what happens to Islam when it tries
This showcases that when Mr. Ibn Khaldun Bharati tries his hand at counterfactual history, few can rival the quality of his thinking, the quality of his imagination, the quality of his writing. His understanding of the grandeur of Indic civilization is awesome, and this essay is glowing with his deep affinity for this great civilization. One can also sense his profound sense of loss regarding Dara Shukoh. What if Dara had not lost to Aurangzeb!
The wise will find it hard to miss how any vision of a ‘unified’ Bharata, ancient, medieval (‘Mughal’), or modern, is inevitably one infused with Sanatana values, ethics, and philosophy.
While this particular speculation on ‘what-if’ is more accurately ‘an exception that proves the rule’ (as Skanda’s comment below mine argues), it is high time that the Bharatiya public, left, right, centre, progressive or conservative, realised that the constructive way forward can only be Ramrajya.
This piece is essentially a mourning letter dressed as history. Every paragraph is calibrated to make you feel the loss of what could have been, rather than interrogate what actually was.
It never asks the more important question — why, in 1500 years, has the Dara template been repeatedly executed by its own people, while the Aurangzeb template gets mosques, textbooks, and street names? The answer makes this entire ‘What If’ exercise redundant.
This ‘What If Dara’ fantasy is the intellectual equivalent of citing one gentle wolf to defend the pack. The pack’s track record speaks louder.
Dara isn’t proof that Islam can reform. Dara is proof of what happens to Islam when it tries