Setting the Record Straight: A Balanced Perspective on Recent Work on Aurangzeb

In recent debates surrounding the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, there has been a tendency to launch personal attacks on scholars who offer interpretations that differ from the conventional narratives. One such scholar is Audrey Truschke, whose work on Aurangzeb has become a focal point of criticism. However, I want to clarify that while I have shared some critical facts about Aurangzeb, I refuse to join the bandwagon of attacking Truschke merely because others have.

It’s important to approach academic discourse with fairness and a willingness to engage with diverse perspectives. Truschke’s book on Aurangzeb, while it has attracted controversy, is not devoid of merit. Her research provides a nuanced view of the emperor, challenging some established beliefs and offering a more complex picture of his reign.

Yes, the historical facts I have cited about Aurangzeb—his violent ascension to power, his destruction of temples, and his harsh treatment of both Hindus and Muslims—are indeed accurate and critical to understanding his rule. These aspects of his reign are crucial for a comprehensive historical account. However, Truschke’s analysis contributes to our understanding by highlighting different facets of his rule, which should not be dismissed out of hand.

The academic value of Truschke’s work lies in its attempt to explore Aurangzeb’s policies and their impacts from a fresh perspective. It is essential to recognize that history is often subject to interpretation, and scholars like Truschke provide important insights that can enrich our understanding, even if they challenge traditional views.

My concern extends beyond this specific debate and touches on a broader issue: the discrimination faced by South Asians in American academic and professional circles. It’s striking that if a scholar of South Asian ethnicity had conducted research similar to Truschke’s, or even if they had studied more languages and produced equally rigorous scholarship, it’s doubtful that they would have received the same level of attention or respect. This disparity highlights a troubling bias that can undermine the recognition and impact of South Asian scholars, regardless of the quality of their work.

Rather than resorting to personal attacks or dismissing differing viewpoints, we should focus on engaging with the evidence and arguments presented. Constructive criticism and open dialogue are the hallmarks of a robust academic debate. It is only through such discussions that we can arrive at a more balanced and informed understanding of historical figures and their legacies. While Truschke attempts to bring some fresh ideas to the historians' perspective on Aurangzeb, she does not seem to have quite come up with a new dataset or new software/code. My Teaching Note and associated historical research is the only source on the Internet that I have found that at least brings up the libertarian position on statist power and uses A.I. to shed light on South Asian history. It is not difficult to bias an A.I. but as far as we can see, the code doesn't have any biases. 

As I said before, the very idea that statist power should be used to simply create a larger empire ought to be challenged by liberals and libertarians alike; however, in the current political milieu, it is only libertarians who remain to challenge the idea that emperors should even be forgiven their abuses of power. The most interesting concept that we need to borrow from the libertarians is their view of the state - the mind-blowingly non-obvious idea that needs to be seriously looked at is, in fact, that individuals left to their own devices are quite capable of justice, progress, innovation and development without the intervention of the state. By not seriously investigating the assumption that a large state such as Aurangzeb is even necessary, Audrey Truschke has simply not done sufficient justice to the topic at hand. By way of contrast, this economic historian (namely, myself - for some reason, historians refer to themselves as "this historian") has done a better job than Audrey Truschke, in the final analysis. 

The definitive guide to understanding Aurangzeb - and a few further comments

 A few comments on Aurangzeb would be proper here. 

In the interest of dispassionate academic discussion, I did not discuss too much Aurangzeb's personality or his proclivities Now, here's the thing about Aurangzeb: no way how you look at it, there is no getting away from the fact that Aurangzeb was a very cruel man, as such fact-based writers as Francois Gautier have observed.

    

Aurangzeb at a Family Gathering - what happens when you accidentally turn your throne into a demolition site and still wonder why the family gatherings are so awkward. #EmpireRenovations #AwkwardFamilyMoments

In the Facebook post below, Gautier argues, in fact, that Aurangzeb, the Mughal emperor, was a particularly harsh ruler. He notes that Aurangzeb meticulously documented his orders, which are preserved in archives. Gautier criticizes historians who, according to him, have not reviewed these documents. He claims (quite correctly, I might add) that Aurangzeb, unlike what some might think, was not the eldest or favored son of Shah Jahan. To become emperor, Aurangzeb killed his brothers, imprisoned and later killed his father, and had his own son imprisoned.

The Role of Big Government in Mughal India -- Part 3

 The Role of Big Government in Mughal India -- Part 3

The legacy of the Mugal Empire

Following Aurangzeb's reign, the Mughal Empire experienced a gradual decline marked by weak successors and internal strife. Successive emperors lacked the military prowess and administrative acumen of their predecessors, leading to a fragmentation of central authority. This fragmentation created power vacuums that regional rulers and foreign invaders exploited, contributing to the empire's disintegration.

The Role of Big Government in Mughal India -- Part 2

The Role of Big Government in Mughal India -- Part 2

What may be said about Aurangzeb as a person? Aurangzeb, as an individual, was deeply religious but it must be said that he also comes across as someone who was quite smart and, at the same time, grounded in reality. Also, a cruel, cruel man. (Yes, he was also an exceedingly cruel person, and that has come down in history as his reputation, but more on that in a later post.) In terms of public policy, it is perhaps accurate to say that he was misunderstood. Aurangzeb's public policy, as evidenced by a nishan sent to Rana Raj Singh of Mewar, emphasized tolerance (in principle - not arguing that it was actually practiced) and condemned intolerance that could lead to conflict and harm to the people. Despite ideological portrayals, the struggle for succession was not about religious orthodoxy versus liberalism but rather a question of political power—who would ascend the Mughal throne, Dara or Aurangzeb?

The Emperor Alamgir on Horseback - The Cleveland Museum of Art

The debate surrounding Aurangzeb's intentions—establishing dar-ul-Islam, rigid adherence to shari’a, or triumphing Muslim theology—remains contested. However, his commitment to territorial expansion and consolidation, evident in the increase in Rajput mansabdars in his administration and the prominence of figures like Raghunath Ray Kayastha, challenges simplistic narratives. The very idea that statist power should be used to simply create a larger empire ought to be challenged by liberals and libertarians alike; however, in the current political milieu, it is only the libertarians who remain to challenge the idea that emperors should even be forgiven their abuses of power. Almost every historian, including Audrey Truschke, has conveniently forgotten that the aim of statist power is to advance the interests of the people, and that such interests can never be protected as long as it is under the control of monarchs. Thus, it is only libertarians who, today, consistently and cogently make the case against the abuses of power of such monarchs as Auangzeb.

Aurangzeb's patronage of Hindu religious institutions, including temples and maths, suggests a nuanced approach to governance. Land grants were renewed, gifts offered, and Madad-i ma’ash grants continued, indicating a policy of religious inclusivity. However, the attack on certain temples, like the Vishwanath temple at Kashi and the Keshav Dev temple at Mathura, raises questions.

These attacks were not mere acts of iconoclasm but responses to rebellion or political misconduct. For instance, the destruction of the Vishwanath temple followed suspicions of aiding Shivaji's escape, while the attack on the Keshav Dev temple in Mathura was linked to a Jat rebellion and the killing of a patron of the local mosque.