It is wrong to say that Sher Shah did not destroy a temple or break an image. His conquest and occupation of Jodhpur was followed by the conversion o… - Sri Ram Sharma
" "It is wrong to say that Sher Shah did not destroy a temple or break an image. His conquest and occupation of Jodhpur was followed by the conversion of the Hindu temple in the fort into a mosque. The Thrlkh-i-DnUdl ascribes his attack on Maldev, Raja of Jodhpur, partly to his religious bigotry and a desire to convert the temples of the Hindus into mosques. His treachery towards Puran Mall was not, as Qanungo tries to assert, the result of a fanatic religious leader forcing his opinions upon an unwilling king. It had been planned by Sher Shah beforehand, discussed by him with his officers and was deliberately done to earn religious merit by exterminating this arch-infidel. Sher Shah said prayers of thanks after this ‘religious’ deed. No amount of mere rhetoric can enable us to get over the accounts of the expedition, especially when we find Sher Shah, who got ill on the eve of the battle, inviting his officers and confiding to them that ever since his accession he had been anxious, in the cause of his religion, to defeat Puran Mall. All accounts give this expedition a religious significance which no argument can destroy. Sher Shah was only a product of his own age as far as his religious policy was concerned. Like Feroz Shah before him, he combined administrative zeal with religious intolerance. His place in history does not depend upon his initiating a policy of religious toleration or neutrality. He had no more to do with founding a united nation in India, which is yet in the making, than any other successful ruler before him.
English
Collect this quote
About Sri Ram Sharma
Sri Ram Sharma (1900-1976) was a professor, historian and author. He taught history, politics and public administration at the Punjab, Bombay and Poona Universities for many years. He was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a member of the Indian Historical Records Commission. He was also the Director of the Institute of Public Administration, Chandigarh and Principal of the D.A.V.College. At the time of his death, he was editing a volume on the 'Mughal Culture and Institutions' for the Comprehensive History of India being Published by Indian History Congress, and had almost finished his portion of the work. Historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi called his work The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors an useful and objective study.
Also Known As
Alternative Names:
Shri Ram Sharma
Related quotes. More quotes will automatically load as you scroll down, or you can use the load more buttons.
Additional quotes by Sri Ram Sharma
This lull was broken in 1679, when Aurangzeb’s fury broke out with a vengeance. Maharsja Jaswant Singh died on 10 December, 1678, When Aurangzeb heard of his death towards the end of the month, he waited patiently for some time and then on 9 March, 1679, orders were given for the sequestration of the state to the crown. About this time DorSb Khan had been sent to Khandela where he demolished various temples in the neighbourhood on 8 March, 1679. This was followed by the despatch of Khan-i- Jahan to Jodhpur. He destroyed many temples there early in 1679 and as an evidence of his ‘meritorious conduct’ he brought cart- loads of idols to Delhi. These were placed in public places in the court and the Friday Mosque. Aurangzeb was not yet at war with Jodhpur which had really been converted into a crownland property. The destruction of its temples therefore was not an act of warfare. It was an announcement that the state was no longer being governed by a Hindu Raja but had now passed into imperial hands.
Sankar, a messenger, was sent to demolish a temple near Sheogaon. He came back after pulling it down on 20 November, 1693. In. April, 1694, it was reported to the emperor that the imperial censor had tried to prevent public idol worship in Jaisinghpura near Aurangabad. The Vairagi priests of the temple were arrested but were soon rescued by the Rajputs.
PREMIUM FEATURE
Advanced Search Filters
Filter search results by source, date, and more with our premium search tools.
A letter written by the President and the Council of Surat on 22 January, 1668, suggests a rather ingenious method of making converts. The factors state that trade had been largely obstructed by the fierce bigotry of Aurangzeb and his persecution of the Hindus. If a Muhammadan had no desire to discharge his debt to the bania and if the bania demanded the payment of the same, the Muhammadan would lodge a complaint to the Kazi that he had called the prophet names or spoken contumaciously of their religion, produce a false witness or two, and the poor man was forced to circumcision and made to embrace Islam. Several persons had been thus served to the great terror of all. This king not at all minding anything of his kingdom gives himself wholly upon the converting or rather perverting the banias.’ Forcible conversion of the Hindus at Surat, at last drove them to plans of migrating from Surat to Bombay. The English, however, turned down their request. The Hindus then closed their shops at Surat and eight thousand of them marched on to Broach to the emperor who was supposed to be there. What became of their appeal we do not know.
Loading...