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.

Gautier describes Aurangzeb as extremely cruel, particularly towards Hindus. He allegedly destroyed numerous Hindu temples and had mosques built on their sites. He also reportedly forced conversions of Hindus to Islam and executed his brother Dara Shukoh for his interest in Hinduism. Gautier connects Aurangzeb’s legacy to contemporary issues in India, suggesting that the emperor’s spirit influences current tensions and conflicts, including the situation in Kashmir. He argues that Aurangzeb’s actions and policies continue to impact India today.

Good thing about #Aurangzeb is he was a very meticulous emperor signed firmans for every order that he passed. These are available in both the Bikaner & Hyderabad Archives. But none of these historians who r defending him bothered to look at them.

We did and we discovered that Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was a neither the eldest, nor the favorite son of his father Shah Jahan. To ascend the throne, he killed his two brothers, dispatched his father to jail and subsequently murdered him by sending him poisoned massage oil. He later had his own son imprisoned (in his will, he admonished: “never trust your sons”). He was also very cruel to the majority of his subjects, the Hindus, ordering all temples destroyed, and making sure that idols of Hindu Gods and Goddesses were buried under the steps of the mosques (like the Jama Masjid in Delhi) so that future generations of Muslims will trample upon them. Aurangzeb did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishwanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism and had mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. A few examples: Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujarat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares and the Treta-ke-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5 figures. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped-out.

Muslims suffered as much as Hindus: 90% of today’s Indian Muslims should know that their great-great-great grandparents were converted by force under Aurangzeb. Even his own brother, Dara Shukoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion.

In addition to the work of Francois Gaytier, there are numerous other historians who have come to similar conclusions. (In addition, our team has also gone through the accounts of a contemporary historian as well, and this historian was contemporaneous in terms of having access to literally the place and the people he was talking about.) What is most troubling is Audrey Truschke's suggestion that Aurangzeb tried to reign his empire with justice, despite the fact that he dispensed "justice" with such cruelty and with the full backing of the state. The libertarian suspicion of giving any state excessive power over individuals, of course, is important to always keep in the back of one's mind any time such contentions are made. And, yes, such contentions should, of course, be challenged. 

Anyone interested in applying the methodology of historian would do well to read my blog posts and the accompanying historical research before they jump to any conclusions. These represent, I believe, the definitive guide to understanding Aurangzeb as a ruler. Nowhere do I claim that treating Hindus and Muslims equally is the touchstone of good rule. Indeed, if there is any lesson we can learn from history, it is that power should always be treated with suspicion - including when Hindus are treated better than Muslims. Any claims departing too much from what I have presented would have to be extraordinary ones. If anyone disagrees and characterizes Aurangzeb in any other way, they had better present extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims, Audrey Truschke included.