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.
In conclusion, while I stand by the facts I’ve shared about Aurangzeb, I also acknowledge that Audrey Truschke’s work deserves fair consideration. Dismissing her contributions outright does not contribute to a meaningful historical discourse. Let’s strive for a dialogue that values diverse perspectives and promotes a deeper exploration of our past.
No comments:
Post a Comment