What do you think?
Rate this book
Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth
Aurangzeb Alamgir (r. 1658-1707), the sixth Mughal emperor, is widely reviled in India today. Hindu hater, murderer and religious zealot are just a handful of the modern caricatures of this maligned ruler. While many continue to accept the storyline peddled by colonial-era thinkers-that Aurangzeb, a Muslim, was a Hindu-loathing bigot-there is an untold side to him as a man who strove to be a just, worthy Indian king.In this bold and captivating biography, Audrey Truschke enters the public debate with a fresh look at the controversial Mughal emperor.
166 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 10, 2017
220 people are currently reading
2665 people want to read
About the author
Audrey Truschke
6 books159 followersAudrey Truschke is assistant professor of South Asian history at Rutgers University, Newark.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 349 reviews
August 14, 2017
Aurangzeb has been cast as an unmitigated villain by the British, a myth which has been enthusiastically adopted by Hindutva apologists to further their agenda of projecting Muslims as cruel bigots and ruthless killers. The truth, as usual, is much more nuanced.
Thus concludes Audrey Truschke the book under review; and we would do well to heed her words. So much of what we have been taught as history have been infected by politics: originally by the designs of our colonial masters, then by the political outlook of the "brown sahibs" who took over our country from them, and lastly by the strident (if illogical) claims of our aggressive Hindu right. Unfortunately, all three found it expedient to demonise Aurangzeb - the British to create the myth of centuries-long Hindu-Muslim conflict, the Congress to prove their historical role in solving that conflict and the BJP to to sustain the myth of the marauding Muslim and the tolerant and long-suffering Hindu. This is the myth that most of us grew up with, and this is the myth which still proves remarkably resilient.
No person is uni-dimensional (other than comic book heroes and villains). This is why narratives which run counter to the popular one are important; why articles describing Gandhi's racism and Mother Theresa's religious fundamentalism need to be read (though not necessarily agreed with). Only when we try to look at historical personages in all their complexity shall we be able to see the past in all its multi-hued glory - which in turn, will illuminate the present.
Audrey Truschke has produced a very readable book (though rather short on substance) on the Emperor which does a laudable job of debunking the myth. Though one expects a more detailed analysis, this book should serve as a starting point for any interested reader on the controversial sovereign.
The charges levied against Aurangzeb are mainly two: (1) he was a bloodthirsty monster who treated his enemies savagely and murdered his kin to gain the throne and (2) he was a religious bigot who relentlessly persecuted Hindus and destroyed temples. The author shows that both of these charges are rooted in half-truths which are more dangerous than lies, because they can so easily fool the gullible.
As to the first charge: yes, Aurangzeb did that - but it was no more than any other Mughal prince would do. Wars of succession for a vacant throne was the norm in the dynasty. There was no primogeniture - the popular saying was ya takht ya tabut (either the throne or the grave). Although Dara Shukoh, Shah Jahan's eldest and favourite son has been treated very kindly by history, in the matter of squabbling for the throne, he was as good (or as bad) as the other three; Shah Shuja, Aurangzeb and Murad. All four wanted the kingship and were willing to do away with their brothers. Aurangzeb was the one who won out.
There have been many recorded instances of Aurangzeb treating his enemies cruelly (Shivaji's son Sambaji is the example which immediately comes to mind) - but then, there are other instances when he proved lenient. Again, there is no evidence to prove that he was more savage than any average medieval king.
Now the biggest charge - that of the religious bigot who systematically tried to wipe out Hinduism - has to be examined. Ms. Truschke provides convincing evidence to illustrate that he was no bigot: only a strict and pious ruler, obsessed with an idea of justice. Obviously he would have considered Islam the true religion and all others as false, but it is clear that politics trumped faith on most occasions. The author quotes Richard Eaton, the leading authority on the subject, to establish that the number of confirmed temple destructions is just over a dozen . And many of those acts had political roots. (We must bear in mind that even Hindu kings sacked and pillaged the temples in rival's domain - the Shaiva/ Vaishnava conflicts are obvious examples.)
There are also ample examples of the emperor continuing the Mughal system of patronage of Hindu and Jain communities. Also, Aurangzeb had a number of Hindu officials under him, some of whom enjoyed very high ranks. Hardly to be expected of a fanatic Hindu-hater! However, it is clear that he was no Akbar, as he reimposed the Jizya (tax on non-Muslims) even though it is very doubtful whether the order was implemented in practice.
(Here I must say that I do not accept what the author says without a pinch of salt. I have read other believable sources, notably the Malayalam author Anand, who claim that Aurangzeb was more fanatical than most. Instead of swinging to one or other end of the pendulum, we must weigh the evidence and decide for ourselves.)
Ultimately, Aurangzeb was a strong king who ruled for more than five decades and who expanded the Mughal kingdom across a major part of the subcontinent. Instead of a cartoon villain, he was a complex character who was composed in parts of the good, the bad and the indifferent, much like all of us.
A complex character indeed - and one worthy of more attention than that which has been given.
The casual reader and scholar alike, however, should be wary of what constitutes historical evidence and a legitimate historical claim. Individuals that claim to present 'evidence' of Aurangzeb's supposed barbarism couched in the suspiciously modern terms of Hindu-Muslim conflict often trade in falsehoods, including fabricated documents and blatantly wrong translations. Many who condemn Aurangzeb have no training in the discipline of history and lack even basic skills in reading premodern Persian. Be sceptical of communal visions that flood the popular sphere. This biography aims to deepen our remarkably thin knowledge about the historical man and king, Aurangzeb Alamgir.
Thus concludes Audrey Truschke the book under review; and we would do well to heed her words. So much of what we have been taught as history have been infected by politics: originally by the designs of our colonial masters, then by the political outlook of the "brown sahibs" who took over our country from them, and lastly by the strident (if illogical) claims of our aggressive Hindu right. Unfortunately, all three found it expedient to demonise Aurangzeb - the British to create the myth of centuries-long Hindu-Muslim conflict, the Congress to prove their historical role in solving that conflict and the BJP to to sustain the myth of the marauding Muslim and the tolerant and long-suffering Hindu. This is the myth that most of us grew up with, and this is the myth which still proves remarkably resilient.
No person is uni-dimensional (other than comic book heroes and villains). This is why narratives which run counter to the popular one are important; why articles describing Gandhi's racism and Mother Theresa's religious fundamentalism need to be read (though not necessarily agreed with). Only when we try to look at historical personages in all their complexity shall we be able to see the past in all its multi-hued glory - which in turn, will illuminate the present.
Audrey Truschke has produced a very readable book (though rather short on substance) on the Emperor which does a laudable job of debunking the myth. Though one expects a more detailed analysis, this book should serve as a starting point for any interested reader on the controversial sovereign.
The charges levied against Aurangzeb are mainly two: (1) he was a bloodthirsty monster who treated his enemies savagely and murdered his kin to gain the throne and (2) he was a religious bigot who relentlessly persecuted Hindus and destroyed temples. The author shows that both of these charges are rooted in half-truths which are more dangerous than lies, because they can so easily fool the gullible.
As to the first charge: yes, Aurangzeb did that - but it was no more than any other Mughal prince would do. Wars of succession for a vacant throne was the norm in the dynasty. There was no primogeniture - the popular saying was ya takht ya tabut (either the throne or the grave). Although Dara Shukoh, Shah Jahan's eldest and favourite son has been treated very kindly by history, in the matter of squabbling for the throne, he was as good (or as bad) as the other three; Shah Shuja, Aurangzeb and Murad. All four wanted the kingship and were willing to do away with their brothers. Aurangzeb was the one who won out.
There have been many recorded instances of Aurangzeb treating his enemies cruelly (Shivaji's son Sambaji is the example which immediately comes to mind) - but then, there are other instances when he proved lenient. Again, there is no evidence to prove that he was more savage than any average medieval king.
Now the biggest charge - that of the religious bigot who systematically tried to wipe out Hinduism - has to be examined. Ms. Truschke provides convincing evidence to illustrate that he was no bigot: only a strict and pious ruler, obsessed with an idea of justice. Obviously he would have considered Islam the true religion and all others as false, but it is clear that politics trumped faith on most occasions. The author quotes Richard Eaton, the leading authority on the subject, to establish that the number of confirmed temple destructions is just over a dozen . And many of those acts had political roots. (We must bear in mind that even Hindu kings sacked and pillaged the temples in rival's domain - the Shaiva/ Vaishnava conflicts are obvious examples.)
There are also ample examples of the emperor continuing the Mughal system of patronage of Hindu and Jain communities. Also, Aurangzeb had a number of Hindu officials under him, some of whom enjoyed very high ranks. Hardly to be expected of a fanatic Hindu-hater! However, it is clear that he was no Akbar, as he reimposed the Jizya (tax on non-Muslims) even though it is very doubtful whether the order was implemented in practice.
(Here I must say that I do not accept what the author says without a pinch of salt. I have read other believable sources, notably the Malayalam author Anand, who claim that Aurangzeb was more fanatical than most. Instead of swinging to one or other end of the pendulum, we must weigh the evidence and decide for ourselves.)
Ultimately, Aurangzeb was a strong king who ruled for more than five decades and who expanded the Mughal kingdom across a major part of the subcontinent. Instead of a cartoon villain, he was a complex character who was composed in parts of the good, the bad and the indifferent, much like all of us.
Aurangzeb nonetheless defies easy summarization. He was a man of studied contrasts and perplexing features. Aurangzeb was preoccupied with order - even fretting over the safety of the roads - but found no alternative to imprisoning his father, an action decried across much of Asia. He did not hesitate to slaughter family members, or rip apart enemies, literally, as was the case with Sambhaji. He also sewed prayer caps by hand and professed a desire to lead a pious life. he was angered by bad administrators, rotten mangoes, and unworthy sons. He was a connoisseur of music and even fell in love with the musician Hirabai, but, beginning in midlife, deprived himself of the pleasure of the musical arts. Nonetheless, he passed his later years in the company of another musician, Udaipuri. He built the largest mosque in the world but chose to be buried in an unmarked grave. He died having expanded the Mughal kingdom to its greatest extent in history and yet feared utter failure.
A complex character indeed - and one worthy of more attention than that which has been given.
March 11, 2017
If you care about serious, objective history, this book is pure rubbish. The sort of cherry-picking of facts that this book employs is adequate to convince the lay reader that Aurangzeb was one of the most pious rulers to have ever walked the face of this Earth. At some junctions, the arguments are so wafer-thin that they are laughable. These perversions would undoubtedly appeal to the honorary members of the Irfan Habib fan club, but they do a great disservice to history and academia. I will be writing a detailed rejoinder soon, but I would strongly advice against wasting your time on this book.
February 3, 2020
Sheer propaganda book.
In her book, writer claimed Aurangzeb wasn't an Islamist fanatic. To support her claims, she cited his "Farman" recording his donation to Mahant of Chitrakoot Balaji temple. This farman was proven a forgery long ago.
Instead i suggest you to read Aurangzeb by Jadunath Sarkar and Shahenshah by N.S. Inamdar.
In her book, writer claimed Aurangzeb wasn't an Islamist fanatic. To support her claims, she cited his "Farman" recording his donation to Mahant of Chitrakoot Balaji temple. This farman was proven a forgery long ago.
Instead i suggest you to read Aurangzeb by Jadunath Sarkar and Shahenshah by N.S. Inamdar.
January 17, 2020
One of the most enthralling history books I ever read is Howard Zinn’s “A People's History of the United States”. In it, Professor Zinn writes about the genocide of Cristopher Columbus’s genocide in America.
“My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that. It would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality”
Nicely put.
In her brief treatise on Aurangzeb, Audrey Truschke expresses similar sentiments.
“Historians seek to comprehend people on their own terms, as products of particular times and places, and explain their actions and impacts.” In my humble opinion, while the “comprehending” part may be interesting, the “actions and impacts” part is more important. From history we learn our past, so that we can shape our future from that learning. Towards that it is important to understand past policies and actions and their impact, so that we can avoid similar mistakes in future.
In case of Aurangzeb, I think two questions are very important to find answers for.
1) Was Aurangzeb’s policies intolerant and repressive for people belonging to faiths other than Sunni Muslim.
2) Did this lead to a quick unraveling of the Mughal empire.
Both the questions has been so clearly settled in the positive by past scholars, that it is surprising that there are still fundamental questions being raised on this topic and more fascinating is that they are becoming so popular. There is nothing new historical elements to this popularity, but plenty of political and ideological one.
Contrary to irritatingly repeated claim by the author, Aurangzeb’s life is anything but a mistry. His life is one of the most well documented periods of Indian history, not just in the imperial court records and his official biography, numerous correspondences with other courts, records in other courts not only documents his reign in detail, but they corroborate each other fitting like a jigsaw puzzle, so that it leaves little doubt about any event or action that took place during his reign.
Surely the writer can fancy that his character was an enigma. But his character can be of prime interest to a novelist, but is of little interest to a historian. To a historian, his words and actions matter, not his thoughts.
Even after such wealth of information being available, if an author claim that the period of Aurangzeb’s reign is a mystery, it seems that the author must have a presupposition about his reign, that she is trying to fit history into that fictitious description, rather than trying to uncover historical truths. This is why the writer chooses to ignore the vast scholarly works of her predecessors and cites obscure sources of questionable authenticity and anecdotes with no historical backing. And her presupposition is not based on any historical background, but rather it is based on so called liberal ideology, that tries to gloss over fundamental islamic characters from history to promote multiculturalism at present time. Well meaning it may be, but it is flawed and dangerous.
I have not read the book in full. I found it, dull, repetitive and factually incorrect. So I skipped parts of it. But I will try to deconstruct the writers hypothesis from the prats that I read.
Temple destruction: The author claims, citing Richard Eaton that Aurangzeb destroyed little over a dozen temples. But the recorded history shows that he destroyed hundreds of temples. He issues farmans for the destruction of over one hundred temples. In Jodhpur alone, dozens of temples were destroyed as per the imperial records. And these are meticulously documented by Jadunath Sarkar in his acclaimed research on the topic. The author claims, without much proof that his orders may not be carried out in call cases. It is possible that in a few cases, facing sharp resistance, the local authorities may have dithered from carrying out such orders. But there is no proof that this was the norm. Rather there is proof to the contrary to show that Aurangzeb’s authority was so supreme, that his orders were rarely ignored. Even if it were true, it does not negate the fact that the state policy was to destroy the places of worship for idolaters.
Then the author makes an argument that the Temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura was destroyed because the trustees there supported his Dara Shuko rival during the war of succession. This is an absurd argument. All non-sunnis supported Dara Suko. It was obvious. If Aurangzeb wanted to exact revenge for this, he had to kill every non-sunni person in his realm. Also the war of succession was in 1658. Why did he wait 12 long years to exact his revenge?
Similar argument is put forward for the destruction of other famous temples like the Viswanath temple and Somnath temple.
The author surmises that Aurangzeb’s temple destruction has less to do with religion and more to do with state policy of deterring rebellion against the empire by setting an example. This is again a curious argument. A deterrence has little effect unless the deterrer loudly announced it. In none of the temple destruction farman’s the reason was cited as a punishment for rebellion. Even in court records and in correspondence and in his biography, he did give reprisal as the reason for destruction. In call occation he clearly declared that he is destroying the places of warship for idolators as it is agist the tenets of Islam.
Had the main reason of temple destruction was political, he would destroy temples in Deccan and in Maratha land, where he faced most rebellion rather than the most holy temples of Hindus.
Giving state policy more pririty over the teachings of Islam: Aurangzeb’s state policies was so orthodox there there were hardly any dispute betweent the two. The three anecdotal incidents that the author cites to prove that he gave precedence to the state policy over Islam, does not stand the scrutiny.
The first instance is that Aurangzeb overrode a quazi’s ruling that among the seven rebels, four Hindus will be converted to Islam or put to death, while the three Muslim rebels were sent prison for three years, to all of them executed by sundown. I did not understand how this give more precedence to state policy to Islam. Surely Islam does not forbid giving capital punishment to rebels.
In the second instance, the author cites another anecdote that he ignored the pleas of the ulema not to wage war against the Adil Shahis of Bijapur. Not sure if Islam forbids war between Muslims. But Muslims are fighting a war against each other since the death of Mahammad until yesterday. So this cannot be a big deal. Besides the Adil Shahis were Shia. Aurangzeb did not consider them as Muslims.
The third - I forgot :)
His legacy: Mughal empire crumbled in 32 years after his death. There is no way to explain this other than the policies adopted by him. The author herself describes how Bahadur Shah struggled in the face of rebellion by the Marathas, Shikhs, Rajputs and Jats less than 4 years of Aurangzeb’s death. Note that they are all non-believers! Muslims did not rebel against Bahadur Shah. This clearly expose the faultline that he created.
Ever since Akbar, most Mughal expeditions were secured by the strengths of Rajputs and Jats. By the time Nadir Shah attacked, there was no Hindu general in Mahammd Shah’s army! The isolation is complete.
Overall the book is poorly written, repetitive and casual. It lacks the depth of scholarly work. What it has in plenty is opinion. It is obvious that the author spent a lot of time in the left liberal intellectuals circles of Delhi and got influenced by their opinion. What the author ignored is that those historians are on Government payroll, who distort history at the government’s behest for a quid pro quo. It is apparent from her not so concealed disdain for “colonial era” historians. Those colonial era historians were, hard working, fearless and were not lapdogs of the establishment. They fact checked and verified every source and every information and uncovered a history that is true. I will take their history any day over the JNU puppets.
I demand my money back from Amazon. Who will refund the wasted time?
“My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that. It would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality”
Nicely put.
In her brief treatise on Aurangzeb, Audrey Truschke expresses similar sentiments.
“Historians seek to comprehend people on their own terms, as products of particular times and places, and explain their actions and impacts.” In my humble opinion, while the “comprehending” part may be interesting, the “actions and impacts” part is more important. From history we learn our past, so that we can shape our future from that learning. Towards that it is important to understand past policies and actions and their impact, so that we can avoid similar mistakes in future.
In case of Aurangzeb, I think two questions are very important to find answers for.
1) Was Aurangzeb’s policies intolerant and repressive for people belonging to faiths other than Sunni Muslim.
2) Did this lead to a quick unraveling of the Mughal empire.
Both the questions has been so clearly settled in the positive by past scholars, that it is surprising that there are still fundamental questions being raised on this topic and more fascinating is that they are becoming so popular. There is nothing new historical elements to this popularity, but plenty of political and ideological one.
Contrary to irritatingly repeated claim by the author, Aurangzeb’s life is anything but a mistry. His life is one of the most well documented periods of Indian history, not just in the imperial court records and his official biography, numerous correspondences with other courts, records in other courts not only documents his reign in detail, but they corroborate each other fitting like a jigsaw puzzle, so that it leaves little doubt about any event or action that took place during his reign.
Surely the writer can fancy that his character was an enigma. But his character can be of prime interest to a novelist, but is of little interest to a historian. To a historian, his words and actions matter, not his thoughts.
Even after such wealth of information being available, if an author claim that the period of Aurangzeb’s reign is a mystery, it seems that the author must have a presupposition about his reign, that she is trying to fit history into that fictitious description, rather than trying to uncover historical truths. This is why the writer chooses to ignore the vast scholarly works of her predecessors and cites obscure sources of questionable authenticity and anecdotes with no historical backing. And her presupposition is not based on any historical background, but rather it is based on so called liberal ideology, that tries to gloss over fundamental islamic characters from history to promote multiculturalism at present time. Well meaning it may be, but it is flawed and dangerous.
I have not read the book in full. I found it, dull, repetitive and factually incorrect. So I skipped parts of it. But I will try to deconstruct the writers hypothesis from the prats that I read.
Temple destruction: The author claims, citing Richard Eaton that Aurangzeb destroyed little over a dozen temples. But the recorded history shows that he destroyed hundreds of temples. He issues farmans for the destruction of over one hundred temples. In Jodhpur alone, dozens of temples were destroyed as per the imperial records. And these are meticulously documented by Jadunath Sarkar in his acclaimed research on the topic. The author claims, without much proof that his orders may not be carried out in call cases. It is possible that in a few cases, facing sharp resistance, the local authorities may have dithered from carrying out such orders. But there is no proof that this was the norm. Rather there is proof to the contrary to show that Aurangzeb’s authority was so supreme, that his orders were rarely ignored. Even if it were true, it does not negate the fact that the state policy was to destroy the places of worship for idolaters.
Then the author makes an argument that the Temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura was destroyed because the trustees there supported his Dara Shuko rival during the war of succession. This is an absurd argument. All non-sunnis supported Dara Suko. It was obvious. If Aurangzeb wanted to exact revenge for this, he had to kill every non-sunni person in his realm. Also the war of succession was in 1658. Why did he wait 12 long years to exact his revenge?
Similar argument is put forward for the destruction of other famous temples like the Viswanath temple and Somnath temple.
The author surmises that Aurangzeb’s temple destruction has less to do with religion and more to do with state policy of deterring rebellion against the empire by setting an example. This is again a curious argument. A deterrence has little effect unless the deterrer loudly announced it. In none of the temple destruction farman’s the reason was cited as a punishment for rebellion. Even in court records and in correspondence and in his biography, he did give reprisal as the reason for destruction. In call occation he clearly declared that he is destroying the places of warship for idolators as it is agist the tenets of Islam.
Had the main reason of temple destruction was political, he would destroy temples in Deccan and in Maratha land, where he faced most rebellion rather than the most holy temples of Hindus.
Giving state policy more pririty over the teachings of Islam: Aurangzeb’s state policies was so orthodox there there were hardly any dispute betweent the two. The three anecdotal incidents that the author cites to prove that he gave precedence to the state policy over Islam, does not stand the scrutiny.
The first instance is that Aurangzeb overrode a quazi’s ruling that among the seven rebels, four Hindus will be converted to Islam or put to death, while the three Muslim rebels were sent prison for three years, to all of them executed by sundown. I did not understand how this give more precedence to state policy to Islam. Surely Islam does not forbid giving capital punishment to rebels.
In the second instance, the author cites another anecdote that he ignored the pleas of the ulema not to wage war against the Adil Shahis of Bijapur. Not sure if Islam forbids war between Muslims. But Muslims are fighting a war against each other since the death of Mahammad until yesterday. So this cannot be a big deal. Besides the Adil Shahis were Shia. Aurangzeb did not consider them as Muslims.
The third - I forgot :)
His legacy: Mughal empire crumbled in 32 years after his death. There is no way to explain this other than the policies adopted by him. The author herself describes how Bahadur Shah struggled in the face of rebellion by the Marathas, Shikhs, Rajputs and Jats less than 4 years of Aurangzeb’s death. Note that they are all non-believers! Muslims did not rebel against Bahadur Shah. This clearly expose the faultline that he created.
Ever since Akbar, most Mughal expeditions were secured by the strengths of Rajputs and Jats. By the time Nadir Shah attacked, there was no Hindu general in Mahammd Shah’s army! The isolation is complete.
Overall the book is poorly written, repetitive and casual. It lacks the depth of scholarly work. What it has in plenty is opinion. It is obvious that the author spent a lot of time in the left liberal intellectuals circles of Delhi and got influenced by their opinion. What the author ignored is that those historians are on Government payroll, who distort history at the government’s behest for a quid pro quo. It is apparent from her not so concealed disdain for “colonial era” historians. Those colonial era historians were, hard working, fearless and were not lapdogs of the establishment. They fact checked and verified every source and every information and uncovered a history that is true. I will take their history any day over the JNU puppets.
I demand my money back from Amazon. Who will refund the wasted time?
August 1, 2017
"Someone Else’s Sins Will Not Justify Your Sins"
The author desperately tried to defend Aurangzeb by just saying those where common practice at that time, given the opportunity Dara Shukoh would did the same. Most idiotic thing she wrote that Hindu Kings also demolished Temples or other religious institute.
Irony is that she wrote a line that sometimes changing facts to suit the author's tastes.
Peace!!
The author desperately tried to defend Aurangzeb by just saying those where common practice at that time, given the opportunity Dara Shukoh would did the same. Most idiotic thing she wrote that Hindu Kings also demolished Temples or other religious institute.
Irony is that she wrote a line that sometimes changing facts to suit the author's tastes.
Peace!!
October 6, 2017
I want back, the time and money I spent on reading this rubbish. This author is obsessed with Aurangzeb- one of the most vile mass murderers of Indian history. Its sad to see her trying to push her agenda as Indian history. Authors who have no idea about what they are writing should refrain from glorifying tyrants.
August 19, 2019
A revisionist history of Aurangzeb that tries to portray him in a different light but fails
June 23, 2023
পারস্যের কবি জামি বলেছিলেন, " কোনো শাসকের অর্ধশত বছরের শাসনকালকে কয়েকটি ঘটনা দিয়ে বর্ণনা করা আর সমুদ্র থেকে দু'চার কলস জল নেওয়া একই কথা। "
আওরঙ্গজেবের মতো গালাগালি এবং গলাগলি সম্ভবত আর কোনো মোগল সম্রাটের ভাগ্যে জোটেনি৷ তাকে একপক্ষ উগ্র ধর্মান্ধ, রক্তপিপাসু রাক্ষস মনে করে। আবার অনেকের কাছেই বাদশাহ আলমগির জিন্দা পির, ধর্মভীরু এবং ততোধিক সৎ শাসক। আওরঙ্গজেব আদতেই কেমন ছিলেন তা আমাদের দক্ষিণ এশিয়ার ঐতিহাসিকরা করেননি। এই চেষ্টাটি দেখলাম একজন ভিনদেশি গবেষকের। যিনি ধর্মে হিন্দু কিংবা মুসলমান নন। তিনি হলেন আদ্রেই তুস্কে (নাম ভুল হলে ক্ষমাপ্রার্থী)। ভদ্রমহিলা অস্ট্রেলিয়ার একটি বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে পড়ান। কলঙ্কিত আওরঙ্গজেব এবং পবিত্র বাদশাহ আলমগির চরিত্রটি কতখানি ফ্যাক্ট এবং কতটা ফিকশনের শিকার তারই সুলুকসন্ধান করেছেন আদ্রে তুস্কে।
ভাইয়ের মেরে, বাবাকে প্রায় এক দশক বন্দি রেখে ময়ূর সিংহাসনে বসেছিলেন আওরঙ্গজেব। তা নিয়ে কারো সন্দেহ নেই। কিন্তু হিন্দুদের মন্দির ধ্বংস, ধর্ম পালনে বাঁধাদান, জিজিয়া কর পুনরায় আরোপ, শিখদের গুরু তেজ বাহাদুরকে হত্যার ঘটনাগুলোর দায় যুগের পর যুগ আওরঙ্গজেব নিয়ে আসছেন। নিন্দিত হচ্ছেন। ইদানীং তো পাশের দেশ ভারতে আওরঙ্গজেব চর্চা অন্য যে-কোনো সময়ের চেয়ে বেড়ে গেছে। থাক সে কথা৷ আদ্রে তুস্কে পাঠককে মোটামুটি একটা ধাক্কা দেন। তিনি আওরঙ্গজেব মিথ ভেঙে দিতেই বোধহয় কলম ধরেছিলেন।
আওরঙ্গজেব এবং দারা শুকোর দ্বন্দ্বে মোগল দরবারের হিন্দু আমলাদের ২১ জন আওরঙ্গজেব পক্ষ নেন। ২৪ জন দারা শুকোর সমর্থক ছিলেন। তাহলে বলা যায়, হিন্দু আমলাদের সমর্থন দু'পক্ষই প্রায় সমান পেয়েছিল। দারা শুকো হিন্দু আমলাদের বিশেষ প্রিয় ছিলেন আর আওরঙ্গজেবকে দেখে ঘৃণায় নসিকা কুঞ্চিত হতো এমনটি আর বলা যাচ্ছে না।
মন্দির ধ্বংস করেছিলেন এটা সত্য। একইসাথে সত্য হলো নিজে মুসলমান হয়েও নবির জন্মোৎসব পালন, ঈদ উৎসাহ-উদ্দীপনার পালন করা, নওরোজ পালনকে মোটামুটি নিষিদ্ধ করেছিলেন। শিয়াদের প্রতি ছিলেন খড়গহস্ত। তাহলে মুসলমান ধর্মকে উগ্রভাবে সমর্থনের দাবিটি টিকলো না তো!
দাক্ষিণাত্য জয় করতে আমৃত্যু অভিযান চালিয়েছেন। অনেক মন্দির ধ্বংস করেছিলেন সেখানে। বিশেষ করে শিবাজি সমর্থকদের মন্দির ধ্বংস করেন ( এই মন্দির ধ্বংসের কারণটি যতটা ধর্মীয় তারচেয়ে শতগুণ বেশি রাজনৈতিক)। মন্দির ধ্বংসকারী আওরঙ্গজেবই তার সমর্থক হিন্দু রাজাদের এলাকায় মন্দির তৈরি করে দেন, মন্দিরের জন্য দেবোত্তর সম্পত্তির ব্যবস্থা করেন।
বিদ্রোহকে অপছন্দ করতেন আওরঙ্গজেব। তার শাসনামলে সামান্যতম বিদ্রোহও কঠোরভাবে দমন করা হয়। এমনকি নিজের ছেলে আকবর বিদ্রোহ করলে তাকে কখনো ক্ষমা করেননি আওরঙ্গজেব। শেষে আকবরকে পিতার ভয়ে পারস্যে পালিয়ে যেতে হয়। সেখানেই মারা যায় আকবর। বুঝতেই পারছেন বিদ্রোহীদের প্রতি আওরঙ্গজেব কেমন মনোভাব পোষণ করতেন। আদ্রে তুস্কে দাবি করেছেন মোগল রাজের বিরোধিতার একমাত্র শাস্তি মৃত্যুদণ্ড ছিল খুবই স্বাভাবিক ঘটনা। পাঞ্জাবের বিদ্রোহী শিখ গুরু তেজ বাহাদুরকে হত্যার ঘটনা তখনকার সময়ে ছিল রুটিনমাফিক বিদ্রোহদমন। পরবর্তীতে এই ঘটনা ধর্মীয় ফ্লেভার পায়।
ব্যক্তি আওরঙ্গজেব, শাসক আওরঙ্গজেবের মধ্যে অনেক দ্বান্দ্বিকতা ছিল। কর্ম এবং বিশ্বাসের সংঘাত আওরঙ্গজেব পুরো জীবনে হরহামেশাই ঘটেছে। অথচ আওরঙ্গজেবকে নিয়ে একমুখী আলোচনা নয়, চাই বহুমাত্রিক তর্ক-বিতর্ক তাতে শাহজাদা আওরঙ্গজেব, ভ্রাতৃহন্তারক আওরঙ্গজেব, 'ধার্মিক' আওরঙ্গজেব, সুশাসক আওরঙ্গজেব, ক্ষমতালোভী আওরঙ্গজেব, ব্যর্থ পিতা আওরঙ্গজেব, সফল সেনানায়ক আওরঙ্গজেব বারবার বিভিন্ন দৃষ্টিকোণ থেকে আলোচিত হবেন, সমালোচিত হবেন। রাজনৈতিক স্বার্থে ফিকশন নয়, ফ্যাক্টই যেন হয় আওরঙ্গজেবকে নিয়ে চর্চার মূল হাতিয়ার। আর এই পথটি দেখালেন এক বিদেশিনী আদ্র তুস্কে৷
ইয়ে মানে..বলতে ভুলে গেছি, আওরঙ্গজেব, গান্ধি, জিন্না এবং মোদিজি - এই চার কুতুবের জন্মভূমি গুজরাট!
আওরঙ্গজেবের মতো গালাগালি এবং গলাগলি সম্ভবত আর কোনো মোগল সম্রাটের ভাগ্যে জোটেনি৷ তাকে একপক্ষ উগ্র ধর্মান্ধ, রক্তপিপাসু রাক্ষস মনে করে। আবার অনেকের কাছেই বাদশাহ আলমগির জিন্দা পির, ধর্মভীরু এবং ততোধিক সৎ শাসক। আওরঙ্গজেব আদতেই কেমন ছিলেন তা আমাদের দক্ষিণ এশিয়ার ঐতিহাসিকরা করেননি। এই চেষ্টাটি দেখলাম একজন ভিনদেশি গবেষকের। যিনি ধর্মে হিন্দু কিংবা মুসলমান নন। তিনি হলেন আদ্রেই তুস্কে (নাম ভুল হলে ক্ষমাপ্রার্থী)। ভদ্রমহিলা অস্ট্রেলিয়ার একটি বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে পড়ান। কলঙ্কিত আওরঙ্গজেব এবং পবিত্র বাদশাহ আলমগির চরিত্রটি কতখানি ফ্যাক্ট এবং কতটা ফিকশনের শিকার তারই সুলুকসন্ধান করেছেন আদ্রে তুস্কে।
ভাইয়ের মেরে, বাবাকে প্রায় এক দশক বন্দি রেখে ময়ূর সিংহাসনে বসেছিলেন আওরঙ্গজেব। তা নিয়ে কারো সন্দেহ নেই। কিন্তু হিন্দুদের মন্দির ধ্বংস, ধর্ম পালনে বাঁধাদান, জিজিয়া কর পুনরায় আরোপ, শিখদের গুরু তেজ বাহাদুরকে হত্যার ঘটনাগুলোর দায় যুগের পর যুগ আওরঙ্গজেব নিয়ে আসছেন। নিন্দিত হচ্ছেন। ইদানীং তো পাশের দেশ ভারতে আওরঙ্গজেব চর্চা অন্য যে-কোনো সময়ের চেয়ে বেড়ে গেছে। থাক সে কথা৷ আদ্রে তুস্কে পাঠককে মোটামুটি একটা ধাক্কা দেন। তিনি আওরঙ্গজেব মিথ ভেঙে দিতেই বোধহয় কলম ধরেছিলেন।
আওরঙ্গজেব এবং দারা শুকোর দ্বন্দ্বে মোগল দরবারের হিন্দু আমলাদের ২১ জন আওরঙ্গজেব পক্ষ নেন। ২৪ জন দারা শুকোর সমর্থক ছিলেন। তাহলে বলা যায়, হিন্দু আমলাদের সমর্থন দু'পক্ষই প্রায় সমান পেয়েছিল। দারা শুকো হিন্দু আমলাদের বিশেষ প্রিয় ছিলেন আর আওরঙ্গজেবকে দেখে ঘৃণায় নসিকা কুঞ্চিত হতো এমনটি আর বলা যাচ্ছে না।
মন্দির ধ্বংস করেছিলেন এটা সত্য। একইসাথে সত্য হলো নিজে মুসলমান হয়েও নবির জন্মোৎসব পালন, ঈদ উৎসাহ-উদ্দীপনার পালন করা, নওরোজ পালনকে মোটামুটি নিষিদ্ধ করেছিলেন। শিয়াদের প্রতি ছিলেন খড়গহস্ত। তাহলে মুসলমান ধর্মকে উগ্রভাবে সমর্থনের দাবিটি টিকলো না তো!
দাক্ষিণাত্য জয় করতে আমৃত্যু অভিযান চালিয়েছেন। অনেক মন্দির ধ্বংস করেছিলেন সেখানে। বিশেষ করে শিবাজি সমর্থকদের মন্দির ধ্বংস করেন ( এই মন্দির ধ্বংসের কারণটি যতটা ধর্মীয় তারচেয়ে শতগুণ বেশি রাজনৈতিক)। মন্দির ধ্বংসকারী আওরঙ্গজেবই তার সমর্থক হিন্দু রাজাদের এলাকায় মন্দির তৈরি করে দেন, মন্দিরের জন্য দেবোত্তর সম্পত্তির ব্যবস্থা করেন।
বিদ্রোহকে অপছন্দ করতেন আওরঙ্গজেব। তার শাসনামলে সামান্যতম বিদ্রোহও কঠোরভাবে দমন করা হয়। এমনকি নিজের ছেলে আকবর বিদ্রোহ করলে তাকে কখনো ক্ষমা করেননি আওরঙ্গজেব। শেষে আকবরকে পিতার ভয়ে পারস্যে পালিয়ে যেতে হয়। সেখানেই মারা যায় আকবর। বুঝতেই পারছেন বিদ্রোহীদের প্রতি আওরঙ্গজেব কেমন মনোভাব পোষণ করতেন। আদ্রে তুস্কে দাবি করেছেন মোগল রাজের বিরোধিতার একমাত্র শাস্তি মৃত্যুদণ্ড ছিল খুবই স্বাভাবিক ঘটনা। পাঞ্জাবের বিদ্রোহী শিখ গুরু তেজ বাহাদুরকে হত্যার ঘটনা তখনকার সময়ে ছিল রুটিনমাফিক বিদ্রোহদমন। পরবর্তীতে এই ঘটনা ধর্মীয় ফ্লেভার পায়।
ব্যক্তি আওরঙ্গজেব, শাসক আওরঙ্গজেবের মধ্যে অনেক দ্বান্দ্বিকতা ছিল। কর্ম এবং বিশ্বাসের সংঘাত আওরঙ্গজেব পুরো জীবনে হরহামেশাই ঘটেছে। অথচ আওরঙ্গজেবকে নিয়ে একমুখী আলোচনা নয়, চাই বহুমাত্রিক তর্ক-বিতর্ক তাতে শাহজাদা আওরঙ্গজেব, ভ্রাতৃহন্তারক আওরঙ্গজেব, 'ধার্মিক' আওরঙ্গজেব, সুশাসক আওরঙ্গজেব, ক্ষমতালোভী আওরঙ্গজেব, ব্যর্থ পিতা আওরঙ্গজেব, সফল সেনানায়ক আওরঙ্গজেব বারবার বিভিন্ন দৃষ্টিকোণ থেকে আলোচিত হবেন, সমালোচিত হবেন। রাজনৈতিক স্বার্থে ফিকশন নয়, ফ্যাক্টই যেন হয় আওরঙ্গজেবকে নিয়ে চর্চার মূল হাতিয়ার। আর এই পথটি দেখালেন এক বিদেশিনী আদ্র তুস্কে৷
ইয়ে মানে..বলতে ভুলে গেছি, আওরঙ্গজেব, গান্ধি, জিন্না এবং মোদিজি - এই চার কুতুবের জন্মভূমি গুজরাট!
October 22, 2017
This book is a complete work of fiction. The author has amazing imagination and has come up with a fairytale book with a man named Aurangzeb as hero. There was this Mughal emperor by the same name who was more of a mass murderer, this book has no connection to that beast. Its like someone trying to portray Hitler as a hero.If there was a way to give negative rating to this book I would have. For those who want to know the real Mughals please read The naked Mughals by Vashi Sharma (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...).
July 3, 2020
Aurangzeb Alamgir, a pivotal figure in the Indian medieval past, is often shrouded in the mystery of a man or a myth - two visions of him feature in public discourse of India and Pakistan - Aurangzeb the Bigot and Aurangzeb the Pious. This book is not a biography per se, but an attempt to discard the popular image of him which exists in this age; instead, to understand a historical emperor in a historical sense.
March 16, 2017
Thoroughly enjoyed the book, for all Non- history Persons, its a very simple read. This book deals with the most hated person in India, and offers a narrative as to how we are all wrong. Aurangzeb tried to be a just king in Medieval India, and one should not attempt to judge based on modern perspectives. Aurangzeb like all had many faults, but not that we often accuse him of, being a religious bigot and fanatic as the book constantly draws our attention to these facts. Must Read if you love Medieval Indian History.
October 21, 2023
Old wine in an old bottle – that is the impression one feels after reading this small book on the last great Mughal emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir. He was a controversial figure then, as now. All of India, with the exception of a bunch of Left-leaning career-historians, consider Aurangzeb as a tyrant who harassed and intimidated the non-Muslim, non-Sunni subjects in untold number of ways. This dislike comes out in more ways than one. ‘Aurangzeb ki Aulad’ (progeny of Aurangzeb) is an invective in India which one hurls against his opponent in the heat of the argument. The administration of Delhi changed the name of Aurangzeb Road in the city to APJ Abdul Kalam Road in 2015. Just because the emperor treated his non-Muslim, non-Sunni subjects so badly, his name is revered in Pakistan and other places where jihadists exert their vicious influence. The Mughals ruled over a vast empire, whose population outstripped the entirety of Europe in 1600. Supplicants from European courts literally begged for trading concessions from the Mughals. Aurangzeb was well known in the higher echelons of England at that time as evidenced in the heroic tragedy Aureng-zebe penned by the poet laureate John Dryden in 1675. This book is by a young author who seeks to clear the myths about the legendary king and bring out the truth. Wholesale whitewashing of Aurangzeb off all his heinous crimes is the outcome of this volume. Audrey Truschke is assistant professor of South Asian history at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey. Her teaching and research interests focus on the cultural, imperial and intellectual history of early modern and modern India (c.1500-present). Unfortunately, the primary source research of the book relies solely on printed editions and no new facts are mentioned anywhere.
Aurangzeb was the most pious Mughal king. But piety was never translated into righteousness in this cruel prince’s career. The mistreatment of his own father, Shah Jehan, is a case in point. Ya takht ya tabut (either the throne or the grave) was the prevailing maxim among brothers in the imperial household. The successful brother – not necessarily the eldest – usually killed or blinded his siblings in the struggle for succession. But extending this rationale for lusting after power to one’s own father was a trifle too much even for medieval sensibilities. The Sharif of Mecca declined to recognize Aurangzeb as the proper ruler of Hindustan and refused his financial gifts for several years until Shah Jehan was dead in his son’s captivity. Contrary to Islamic doctrine, Aurangzeb was a staunch believer in astrology and continued to consult astrologers till the end of his life. Like other princes of the era, he too was fond of shapely dancers and singers. Trushcke remarks about his whirlwind romance with a courtesan named Hirabai Zainabadi in Burhanpur that created ripples of palace gossip. He was enthusiastic in erecting fine mausoleums for his loved ones, just like other Mughal kings. Aurangzeb’s first wife, Dilras Banu Begum, died from complications following the birth of her fifth child and the king erected a fine tomb Bibi ka Maqbara at Aurangabad. Locals still call it ‘Poor man’s Taj’.
Aurangzeb’s transition to Puritanism after 1669 is clearly noted in the book. As part of his Deccan campaign, the capital was shifted to the South and the king and his entourage lived in tents thereafter for the rest of his life. His nomad ancestors had lived in tents and in a twist of fate, the world-seizer (alamgir) also spent his life in tents in the wilderness. He tried to ensure justice to the people, but corruption was widespread under the elusive quest for justice. Even Abdul Wahhab, the chief qazi (judge) and hence a moral guide to the empire, freely indulged in backhand dealings. Truschke makes a vain attempt to praise Aurangzeb for increasing the share of Hindu nobility from 22.5 per cent under Akbar to 31.6 per cent of the total. The real cause for this increase was the frantic attempt to incorporate the Maratha aristocracy into the Mughal nobility so as to co-opt them in the fight against the Deccan sultanates. Aurangzeb’s cruelty to Sambhaji, who was Shivaji’s son and captured by Mughal troops, is mentioned in the book. He was forced to wear funny hats and was led into court on camels. He then had Sambhaji’s eyes stabbed out with nails and later had him decapitated. His body was chopped to pieces and thrown to the dogs, while his head was stuffed with straw and displayed in cities throughout the Deccan (p.69). Aurangzeb at his typical best!
The author justifies all the wicked acts of Aurangzeb in a rather unabashed way. She somewhat assumes a ‘So-What?’ attitude to the emperor’s most heinous depredations. He banned public festivities in the kingdom. Truschke justifies it on concerns with public safety. He resorted to forcible conversion of Hindus. The author does not deny it, but counters it with the laughable claim that some individuals found compelling reasons to adopt Islam so as to climb Mughal hierarchy and conversions made people eligible for jobs reserved for Muslims. Thus, she indirectly admits that there was indeed discrimination of the worst kind. Aurangzeb executed several prominent members of the Shiite Mahdavi sect? No problem, the Mahdavis had political ambitions. He destroyed temples? No problem, they acted against imperial interests. He demolished Vishwanath temple at Benares in 1669 and Keshav Dev temple at Mathura in 1670? No problem, this was just to punish political missteps by the temple associates. Aurangzeb desecrated Ahmedabad’s Chintamani Parshwanath Jain temple? No problem, the evidence is fragmentary, incomplete or contradictory. Aurangzeb recalled all endowed lands given to Hindus and reserved all future land grants to Muslims only? No problem, this was possibly just a concession to the ulema (Muslim clergy). So goes the author’s justifications. Trushcke’s arguments can be summarized thus – Aurangzeb could have destroyed all the temples in India. He didn’t and hence you must be grateful to his generosity! This is as ridiculous as positing that since Hitler could have killed all the Jews in Germany but didn’t, is a valid reason the Jews must regard him as a level-headed great ruler.
The book devotes only a short space to Aurangzeb’s role in the scrapping of the Mughal kingdom which labored on for only 150 years after his death. It is wrong to ascribe all blame on a single person, but it is undeniable that the seeds of destruction was planted well within the lifetime of the last great Mughal. Truschke doesn’t mention anything about the slide towards disaster. Persians and Afghans robbed the country at their sweet will. Warlords roamed the kingdom and often kept the royal family in hostage. Mughal princesses were forced to dance without veil in front of their lustful eyes and lewd gestures. Emperor Shah Alam II’s eyes were gouged out of its sockets by the bare hands of such a warlord in a fit of rage. The penultimate Mughal king Akbar Shah II (r.1806-37) charged foreign visitors for an audience with him to make both ends meet. The last one, Bahadur Shah II sided against the British and ended up transported for life in Burma, while his lineage was brutally cut short by the arms of the British army. Thus ended the Mughal dynasty in 1857.
The book is a total disappointment because of the single-point agenda of the author in justifying Aurangzeb by whatever means. It includes a few colour paintings on the life of the emperor. The book includes a good index.
The book is recommended.
Aurangzeb was the most pious Mughal king. But piety was never translated into righteousness in this cruel prince’s career. The mistreatment of his own father, Shah Jehan, is a case in point. Ya takht ya tabut (either the throne or the grave) was the prevailing maxim among brothers in the imperial household. The successful brother – not necessarily the eldest – usually killed or blinded his siblings in the struggle for succession. But extending this rationale for lusting after power to one’s own father was a trifle too much even for medieval sensibilities. The Sharif of Mecca declined to recognize Aurangzeb as the proper ruler of Hindustan and refused his financial gifts for several years until Shah Jehan was dead in his son’s captivity. Contrary to Islamic doctrine, Aurangzeb was a staunch believer in astrology and continued to consult astrologers till the end of his life. Like other princes of the era, he too was fond of shapely dancers and singers. Trushcke remarks about his whirlwind romance with a courtesan named Hirabai Zainabadi in Burhanpur that created ripples of palace gossip. He was enthusiastic in erecting fine mausoleums for his loved ones, just like other Mughal kings. Aurangzeb’s first wife, Dilras Banu Begum, died from complications following the birth of her fifth child and the king erected a fine tomb Bibi ka Maqbara at Aurangabad. Locals still call it ‘Poor man’s Taj’.
Aurangzeb’s transition to Puritanism after 1669 is clearly noted in the book. As part of his Deccan campaign, the capital was shifted to the South and the king and his entourage lived in tents thereafter for the rest of his life. His nomad ancestors had lived in tents and in a twist of fate, the world-seizer (alamgir) also spent his life in tents in the wilderness. He tried to ensure justice to the people, but corruption was widespread under the elusive quest for justice. Even Abdul Wahhab, the chief qazi (judge) and hence a moral guide to the empire, freely indulged in backhand dealings. Truschke makes a vain attempt to praise Aurangzeb for increasing the share of Hindu nobility from 22.5 per cent under Akbar to 31.6 per cent of the total. The real cause for this increase was the frantic attempt to incorporate the Maratha aristocracy into the Mughal nobility so as to co-opt them in the fight against the Deccan sultanates. Aurangzeb’s cruelty to Sambhaji, who was Shivaji’s son and captured by Mughal troops, is mentioned in the book. He was forced to wear funny hats and was led into court on camels. He then had Sambhaji’s eyes stabbed out with nails and later had him decapitated. His body was chopped to pieces and thrown to the dogs, while his head was stuffed with straw and displayed in cities throughout the Deccan (p.69). Aurangzeb at his typical best!
The author justifies all the wicked acts of Aurangzeb in a rather unabashed way. She somewhat assumes a ‘So-What?’ attitude to the emperor’s most heinous depredations. He banned public festivities in the kingdom. Truschke justifies it on concerns with public safety. He resorted to forcible conversion of Hindus. The author does not deny it, but counters it with the laughable claim that some individuals found compelling reasons to adopt Islam so as to climb Mughal hierarchy and conversions made people eligible for jobs reserved for Muslims. Thus, she indirectly admits that there was indeed discrimination of the worst kind. Aurangzeb executed several prominent members of the Shiite Mahdavi sect? No problem, the Mahdavis had political ambitions. He destroyed temples? No problem, they acted against imperial interests. He demolished Vishwanath temple at Benares in 1669 and Keshav Dev temple at Mathura in 1670? No problem, this was just to punish political missteps by the temple associates. Aurangzeb desecrated Ahmedabad’s Chintamani Parshwanath Jain temple? No problem, the evidence is fragmentary, incomplete or contradictory. Aurangzeb recalled all endowed lands given to Hindus and reserved all future land grants to Muslims only? No problem, this was possibly just a concession to the ulema (Muslim clergy). So goes the author’s justifications. Trushcke’s arguments can be summarized thus – Aurangzeb could have destroyed all the temples in India. He didn’t and hence you must be grateful to his generosity! This is as ridiculous as positing that since Hitler could have killed all the Jews in Germany but didn’t, is a valid reason the Jews must regard him as a level-headed great ruler.
The book devotes only a short space to Aurangzeb’s role in the scrapping of the Mughal kingdom which labored on for only 150 years after his death. It is wrong to ascribe all blame on a single person, but it is undeniable that the seeds of destruction was planted well within the lifetime of the last great Mughal. Truschke doesn’t mention anything about the slide towards disaster. Persians and Afghans robbed the country at their sweet will. Warlords roamed the kingdom and often kept the royal family in hostage. Mughal princesses were forced to dance without veil in front of their lustful eyes and lewd gestures. Emperor Shah Alam II’s eyes were gouged out of its sockets by the bare hands of such a warlord in a fit of rage. The penultimate Mughal king Akbar Shah II (r.1806-37) charged foreign visitors for an audience with him to make both ends meet. The last one, Bahadur Shah II sided against the British and ended up transported for life in Burma, while his lineage was brutally cut short by the arms of the British army. Thus ended the Mughal dynasty in 1857.
The book is a total disappointment because of the single-point agenda of the author in justifying Aurangzeb by whatever means. It includes a few colour paintings on the life of the emperor. The book includes a good index.
The book is recommended.
September 13, 2020
20 pages into this book and I knew I was not going to like it. I had picked up this book just to render some kind of a perspective to my in-parallel reading on this subject but this book is not just blatantly vicious but also from the word go, feels motivated. It is not in my position to comment on the need and intent behind writing this book but it definitely is not a book that should be read if a genuine opinion is to be formed.
Coming to the subject, the text essentially covers the reign of Aurangzeb Alamgir (1658-1707) and the world view on him. It tries to rationalise how the opinion that Aurangzeb was a plunderer, Hindu-hater, religious fanatic et al, is misplaced. It also asserts the positioning that he acted according to the law of the land during his times (which was his law for that matter as it was his land mostly). It also speaks at length about the audacities of his subjects and contemporary non-Muslim kings. Essentially, anything that helps form a narrative favoring the intent of the author. Basis? Some random unheard texts and fictionalised references.
My take is very simple. Our national integrity is way beyond the reach of such propaganda pieces of literature and it is our responsibility to reject such narratives, irrespective of what class, caste, religion, faith, we are a part of.
Coming to the subject, the text essentially covers the reign of Aurangzeb Alamgir (1658-1707) and the world view on him. It tries to rationalise how the opinion that Aurangzeb was a plunderer, Hindu-hater, religious fanatic et al, is misplaced. It also asserts the positioning that he acted according to the law of the land during his times (which was his law for that matter as it was his land mostly). It also speaks at length about the audacities of his subjects and contemporary non-Muslim kings. Essentially, anything that helps form a narrative favoring the intent of the author. Basis? Some random unheard texts and fictionalised references.
My take is very simple. Our national integrity is way beyond the reach of such propaganda pieces of literature and it is our responsibility to reject such narratives, irrespective of what class, caste, religion, faith, we are a part of.
November 22, 2017
History in India suffers from a perception extremity. Either a king is good and great or he is vile and terrible. Sadly, there is no middle path to understand the subtle shades of grey. Also our views are colored by the early historians who were mostly British (and possibly on the payroll of the company!) or later day Indian historians who came with their own baggage of political bias ( Pandit Nehru included !) and presented us a history as they interpret and not history as it happened.
Tipu Sultan is a famous victim. Rarely do you read anything good about him from the British Historians….since the poor man sought the support of the French to defeat the British….possibly history’s greatest victim of a biased and prejudiced presentation is Aurangzeb. Till today, I haven’t read anything favorable about him…..and the long list of selective facts dished out to us to color our perceptions and sharpen our prejudices.. Pandit Nehru and his ‘Glimpses of World History’ where the sixth Mughal emperor was chronicled in a very biased manner paved the way for our perceptions…..and all our school history books are a reflection of Nehru’s world view…and we all grew up believing that Aurangzeb was evil incarnate.
He jailed his father and killed some of his brothers who were competing for the throne, he killed the much revered Guru Tej Bahadur Singh, he imposed the Jijiya tax, razed multiple temples. Well, this was how the World was in those days, of conquering kings who eliminated all competition to the throne, persecuted the conquered populace, converted them to their religion and decimated all symbols of the conquered’s faith, imposed arbitrary taxes…the list is endless….possibly most of the Mughal Kings were guilty of all of the above, to some degree.
Audrey Truschke, a young Ph.D scholar who teaches South Asian history at Rutgers gives her own spin digging out historical facts which balance the biased world view of Aurangzeb. Book is replete with instances which may force us to rethink our view on Aurangzeb……of a man who ensured the translation of the Hindu epics to Persian so that it gets a wider audience, of a king who had a lot of trusted Hindu advisers and many more facts which show him as a balanced king and possibly one of the better Mughal rulers.
It is not my intention to present a new version of Aurangzeb as a good and great king….my only hope is that people read multiple points of view, research as many data points as possible before arriving at conclusions. At the end of it, if you conclude that Aurangzeb was after all one of the worse kings – so be it.
In my view…if Aurangzeb could be held most guilty of…it is over ambition and hubris.….Was on a conquering spree without setting up the infrastructure for governing the conquered territories well which sowed the seeds for the disintegration of the Moghul empire…….the birth of the Asaf Jahi dynasty in the Deccan owes its origins to the stretched Moghul empire…..and the ambitious generals who were trusted to manage but not reined in well.
My only complaint on this well written book is that it is too short. Sub 200 pages in big font….actually would fit into 100 pages. A more detailed and comprehensive book would have helped the author with more heft to present a contrarian point of view, which she endeavors to.
One may not agree with all that is in the book but it provides an interesting and different point of view…..now I must read a more detailed book on this misunderstood and much maligned king…any recommendations ?
Tipu Sultan is a famous victim. Rarely do you read anything good about him from the British Historians….since the poor man sought the support of the French to defeat the British….possibly history’s greatest victim of a biased and prejudiced presentation is Aurangzeb. Till today, I haven’t read anything favorable about him…..and the long list of selective facts dished out to us to color our perceptions and sharpen our prejudices.. Pandit Nehru and his ‘Glimpses of World History’ where the sixth Mughal emperor was chronicled in a very biased manner paved the way for our perceptions…..and all our school history books are a reflection of Nehru’s world view…and we all grew up believing that Aurangzeb was evil incarnate.
He jailed his father and killed some of his brothers who were competing for the throne, he killed the much revered Guru Tej Bahadur Singh, he imposed the Jijiya tax, razed multiple temples. Well, this was how the World was in those days, of conquering kings who eliminated all competition to the throne, persecuted the conquered populace, converted them to their religion and decimated all symbols of the conquered’s faith, imposed arbitrary taxes…the list is endless….possibly most of the Mughal Kings were guilty of all of the above, to some degree.
Audrey Truschke, a young Ph.D scholar who teaches South Asian history at Rutgers gives her own spin digging out historical facts which balance the biased world view of Aurangzeb. Book is replete with instances which may force us to rethink our view on Aurangzeb……of a man who ensured the translation of the Hindu epics to Persian so that it gets a wider audience, of a king who had a lot of trusted Hindu advisers and many more facts which show him as a balanced king and possibly one of the better Mughal rulers.
It is not my intention to present a new version of Aurangzeb as a good and great king….my only hope is that people read multiple points of view, research as many data points as possible before arriving at conclusions. At the end of it, if you conclude that Aurangzeb was after all one of the worse kings – so be it.
In my view…if Aurangzeb could be held most guilty of…it is over ambition and hubris.….Was on a conquering spree without setting up the infrastructure for governing the conquered territories well which sowed the seeds for the disintegration of the Moghul empire…….the birth of the Asaf Jahi dynasty in the Deccan owes its origins to the stretched Moghul empire…..and the ambitious generals who were trusted to manage but not reined in well.
My only complaint on this well written book is that it is too short. Sub 200 pages in big font….actually would fit into 100 pages. A more detailed and comprehensive book would have helped the author with more heft to present a contrarian point of view, which she endeavors to.
One may not agree with all that is in the book but it provides an interesting and different point of view…..now I must read a more detailed book on this misunderstood and much maligned king…any recommendations ?
December 2, 2019
This book is full of a false narrative to cover up the genocidal regime of Mughal invaders. while coming to the author, she is the coward of the 3rd grade who cannot even take criticism on social media. she is a Mass Blocker ( blocks everyone who questions her). Author's hatred towards Hinduism was exposed on many platforms...i recommend this book to be recycled for sanitary napkins .
April 1, 2021
I am astounded that this author has had the audacity to imply that Aurangzeb was a benevolent ruler of India. His destruction of temples alone belies this fact. The author has chosen only selective sources as her references and has conveniently not quoted any that explicitly write about his religious fanaticism, forced conversions, inhumane tortures he subjected Hindu and Sikh leaders too, mass destruction of temples, etc. The list goes on.
This book is a joke. The author's only goal appears to be to whitewash Aurangzeb's cruelty and crimes.
This book is a joke. The author's only goal appears to be to whitewash Aurangzeb's cruelty and crimes.
January 30, 2021
Aurangzeb is often portrayed as a villain by the historians that don’t always heed to facts. On the contrary, he was a just ruler, who didn’t discriminate between his subjects.
In this book, the author questioned many of the myths about this great ruler and clarified many of them.
A fascinating and well-written book.
In this book, the author questioned many of the myths about this great ruler and clarified many of them.
A fascinating and well-written book.
March 30, 2020
Crappy, a book without coherence, filled with white lies and half truths, which can be debunked by a simple google search. The author is staunch indophobic, holocaust denier, David Irving of Indian history.
Just download it from libgen or z-lib, not worth a penny.
Just download it from libgen or z-lib, not worth a penny.
April 16, 2021
1/5 ⭐
This book is a straight-up letdown. I picked up this book with a really high expectation and what a disaster it was. Audrey did research, I will give her that but she apparently failed to research the primary sources. There are accounts like Manucci, who wrote his experience of Aurangzeb in his book. Having read a primary source like Manucci's book, I can just conclude that Audrey has ignored many primary sources or has done cherry-picking. In one way Audrey writes that Aurangzeb did not make India poor, however, this claim is not true at all. The Imperial Treasury Of The Indian Mughals by Abdul Aziz, clearly list all of the transaction and money sent by Aurangzeb outside current demographical India. This amount is huge and is much greater than what Nadir Shah plundered. There are other unbelievable claims like calling the action of Aurangzeb as political moves, which is a very disputed. It is the straight-up whitewashing of action done by Aurangzeb. If you don't believe me, I would suggest you pick up the English translation of ALAMGIRNAMA and the Letters of Aurangzeb. Most of the records which we have of temple destruction come from Mughul sources themselves. They are very proud of their action in their books. I don't know how her work got peer-reviewed but a lot of things that she claims have no basis at all. I have read several colonial accounts of Aurangzeb, they all talk about Aurangzeb being a tyrant. I am reading someone romanticizing this Tyrant for the first time. Lastly, The time is not away when these people start to romanticize that tyrant from Germany too!
This book is a straight-up letdown. I picked up this book with a really high expectation and what a disaster it was. Audrey did research, I will give her that but she apparently failed to research the primary sources. There are accounts like Manucci, who wrote his experience of Aurangzeb in his book. Having read a primary source like Manucci's book, I can just conclude that Audrey has ignored many primary sources or has done cherry-picking. In one way Audrey writes that Aurangzeb did not make India poor, however, this claim is not true at all. The Imperial Treasury Of The Indian Mughals by Abdul Aziz, clearly list all of the transaction and money sent by Aurangzeb outside current demographical India. This amount is huge and is much greater than what Nadir Shah plundered. There are other unbelievable claims like calling the action of Aurangzeb as political moves, which is a very disputed. It is the straight-up whitewashing of action done by Aurangzeb. If you don't believe me, I would suggest you pick up the English translation of ALAMGIRNAMA and the Letters of Aurangzeb. Most of the records which we have of temple destruction come from Mughul sources themselves. They are very proud of their action in their books. I don't know how her work got peer-reviewed but a lot of things that she claims have no basis at all. I have read several colonial accounts of Aurangzeb, they all talk about Aurangzeb being a tyrant. I am reading someone romanticizing this Tyrant for the first time. Lastly, The time is not away when these people start to romanticize that tyrant from Germany too!
August 16, 2023
I refuse to read anything written by a person who does not have the dignity to respect other people's personal choices and beliefs.
I refuse to read anything written by a person who believes it's okay to be offensive and spread hate based on jumbled and false interpretations of their own.
I refuse to let a white person benefit (make money or otherwise) by talking about Indian (PoC) history.
Enough is enough.
You don't have to degrade a whole nation of people to make yourself feel better.
Hating other religions does NOT glorify your own. In fact, it does the opposite.
Learn to celebrate differences. Learn to respect individual liberty and choice. Learn to spread acceptance and understanding. Learn to live with love.
--------------------------------------
This review is in response to the author's extensive history of spreading hate on twitter.
Edit-
My review is based on the following articles
- Reddy, Srinivas. "What does Sita really say in Valmiki's Ramayana?". The Caravan. 10 July 2021.
- Vardhan, Anand. "The Unscholarly Dishonesty of Audrey Truschke: The objections to Truschke's tweets were never about interpretation". Newslaundry. 30 April 2018.
- Swarajya Staff. "The Scholar Whom Audrey Truschke Cites Finds Her Tweet ‘Shocking’".
Swarajya. 24th Apr 2018.
I am happy to engage in academic discussion in defense of the author in the comments below.
I refuse to read anything written by a person who believes it's okay to be offensive and spread hate based on jumbled and false interpretations of their own.
I refuse to let a white person benefit (make money or otherwise) by talking about Indian (PoC) history.
Enough is enough.
You don't have to degrade a whole nation of people to make yourself feel better.
Hating other religions does NOT glorify your own. In fact, it does the opposite.
Learn to celebrate differences. Learn to respect individual liberty and choice. Learn to spread acceptance and understanding. Learn to live with love.
--------------------------------------
This review is in response to the author's extensive history of spreading hate on twitter.
Edit-
My review is based on the following articles
- Reddy, Srinivas. "What does Sita really say in Valmiki's Ramayana?". The Caravan. 10 July 2021.
- Vardhan, Anand. "The Unscholarly Dishonesty of Audrey Truschke: The objections to Truschke's tweets were never about interpretation". Newslaundry. 30 April 2018.
- Swarajya Staff. "The Scholar Whom Audrey Truschke Cites Finds Her Tweet ‘Shocking’".
Swarajya. 24th Apr 2018.
I am happy to engage in academic discussion in defense of the author in the comments below.
October 9, 2020
The book is crammed with misinterpretations while ignoramus degree of writing makes one curious about whether this is an authentic book or something written for political vendetta. The fact that the book excludes myriad historical artefacts makes it even more of a “Self-proclaimed historical insight, ” while it is more of an undisclosed “political vendetta ”.
April 16, 2020
If u want read about true history, this is not the book you are looking for, i think audrie has tried hard to make people like aurangzeb!
November 14, 2020
Poorly researched book. Reeks of a biased agenda. It’s a shame that the author has built a career defending a genocidal maniac. The book is a desperate attempt to whitewash his crimes.
November 9, 2018
I think Audrey tries too hard to make people like Aurangazeb.
June 30, 2020
This book is a highly biased and opinionated view of the tyrant. a white woman trying to whitewash the crimes committed by a tyrant. keep away from books by this vile opinionated woman !!
May 6, 2017
Despite its erratic style, it does address certain myths about Aurangzeb. Short and academic writing doesn't make it a great book though. A biography deserves more, it deserves analysis and in depth discussion about the person and his outlook.
February 2, 2021
Aurangzeb was a butcher. Who killed his brother, Imprisoned father and sister.
Aurangzeb's tyranny and bigotry cannot be whitewashed, by writing some fictionalized history books.
If denying holocaust is punishable , same should be for glorifying Aurangzeb type tyrant.
Aurangzeb's tyranny and bigotry cannot be whitewashed, by writing some fictionalized history books.
If denying holocaust is punishable , same should be for glorifying Aurangzeb type tyrant.
August 11, 2020
It definitely occurs as a fiction originated in author's head and based upon biased assumptions.
October 12, 2019
I read what Aundrey Truschke wrote. She tried her best to put aside the bewilderment that Aurangzeb was very tyranny for non-Muslims. Throughout the course she tried to explain that Aurangzeb was not an orthodox Muslim but was a potentate. She failed to bring out the fact that he carried against non-Muslims including Shia Muslims. Thiusands of Shia Muslims were massacred in his reign purely on the basis of religious bigotry not political. He was a drunkard and charlatan. The barbarism of his reign cannot be ignored but Aundrey Truschke choose to ignore and it. And just write a portion in his favour. But what she had panned is worthy of reading.
March 6, 2020
Aurangzeb Alamgir, the sixth Mughal emperor, was also the last of the great ones, before the empire began to decline. In this short and very readable bio, the author tries to demystify him and present him for what he was, rather than simply a tyrant. He was certainly not a person one can categorise easily, not one whose motivations are easy to understand and this is the picture one comes away with from this book. He was cruel, certainly, but so were other rulers at his time; he killed his brothers to take the throne, but so did his predecessors; he crushed any who tried to stand up against the empire or against him but that again was not extraordinary; he was perhaps more religious than his predecessors but that was not something that affected the way he ruled as much as is made out to be. He was expansionist, but again that is nothing unexpected from someone in his position and in his day. No one argues that he was otherwise than these things but overall I felt the author has done a great job at trying to present a balanced picture, rather than the exaggerated one of popular myths and images. Enjoyed this one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 349 reviews