Aurangzeb The Cruel King of his times r The Great Emperor at his times

Aurangzeb is very cruel king ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 70.2%
  • No

    Votes: 14 29.8%

  • Total voters
    47
Joined Nov 2015
157 Posts | 1+
Qatar
Hi friends ,

Always while coming to the Auranzeb news there is always two different types of news are there +ve n -ve

1) He is very cruel and bloodshed ruler at his times , he demolished 1000 s of temples killed 1,50,000 brahmins ,converted many hindus to muslims .

2) He is great emporer at his times ,he never concentrated to demolish the temples it is only political issues under this ,he never hatred to hindus . He has very good administrative policies.
 
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
Aurangzeb was the last of the great Mughals. In his lifetime he killed his own brothers. He radicalised the Sikhs and alienated the Rajputs all the while draining the treasury and million strong army in the deccan wars. The mughal empire and army was so weakened during his long rule that it took marathas only 20 years to overtake mughals as the strongest power in India after his death.

In my opinion he was a religious and pious man and of course a very able general but he was the worst of all the emperor. His fanaticm doomed the empire.
 
Joined Nov 2015
157 Posts | 1+
Qatar
Aurangzeb was the last of the great Mughals. In his lifetime he killed his own brothers. He radicalised the Sikhs and alienated the Rajputs all the while draining the treasury and million strong army in the deccan wars. The mughal empire and army was so weakened during his long rule that it took marathas only 20 years to overtake mughals as the strongest power in India after his death.

In my opinion he was a religious and pious man and of course a very able general but he was the worst of all the emperor. His fanaticm doomed the empire.

Heard as he religious banned music n alcohol.
Is that made him to mass conversions n demolishing temples??
 
Joined Jul 2014
2,556 Posts | 558+
world
He banned music and dancing. He demolished temples and reintroduced Jaziya tax. He started a pointless war against Muslim Deccan sultanates which he won but ironically inherted the maratha problem. He executed the Sikh Gurus and inadvertantly transformed the sikhs into a militant antimuslim fanatics. He alienated the Rajputs by temple destruction and pointless insults.
 
Joined Oct 2015
1,528 Posts | 573+
India
Hi friends ,

Always while coming to the Auranzeb news there is always two different types of news are there +ve n -ve

1) He is very cruel and bloodshed ruler at his times , he demolished 1000 s of temples killed 1,50,000 brahmins ,converted many hindus to muslims .

2) He is great emporer at his times ,he never concentrated to demolish the temples it is only political issues under this ,he never hatred to hindus . He has very good administrative policies.

Dear All,

While Aurangzeb’s ancestors (Babar to Shahjahan) have left an official record of their rule, Aurangzeb dismissed the court-historians saying they are not required.



For his reign the most comprehensive – an in my view most reliable record – has been left by Niccolao Manucci (NM). NM was an Italian, landed in Surat (Gujarat, India) in 1656 at the age of about 17 years, when Shahjahan was the Emperor. He lived in India thru the reign of Shahjahan and also complete reign of Aurangzeb (-1707), dying around 1717 at an age of 78 years in/near Chennai (Tamil Nadu, India). NM was employed for most of these years in Mughals or their allies – either as a gunner or doctor.


His was a contemporary of Aurangzeb, he lived for 61 years in India, and wrote his memories in four volumes which are available online for free.



[1] Niccolao Manucci - bdbiography.com
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolao_Manucci
 
Joined Sep 2012
10,148 Posts | 703+
India
Last edited:
The cruelty with which he ordered the torture and then ordered the killing of Sambhaji, Maratha King and brave but wastrel son of the great Maratha King, Chhatrapati Shivaji is a case in point.
In spite of the killing of Sambhaji, he simply could not subdue the Marathas, who resisted his vast army camped in the Deccan, with guerrilla tactics. This war went on for nearly 20 years. He died here in the Deccan at Aurangabad, in the present state of Maharashtra.See here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambhaji
 
Joined Aug 2014
1,273 Posts | 193+
pakistan
The cruelty with which he ordered the torture and then ordered the killing of Sambhaji, Maratha King and brave but wastrel son of the great Maratha King, Chhatrapati Shivaji is a case in point.
In spite of the killing of Sambhaji, he simply could not subdue the Marathas, who resisted his vast army camped in the Deccan, with guerrilla tactics. This war went on for nearly 20 years. He died here in the Deccan at Aurangabad, in the present state of Maharashtra.See here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambhaji
Sambhaji, unlike his father, lacked morals and principles and carried out indiscriminate slaughter of muslim civilians. Even then Aurangzeb had no intention of murdering him, but he started calling names to Holy Prophet p.b.u.h in front of him, the sentence of which was death.
 
Joined Dec 2014
2,188 Posts | 224+
autobahn
Sambhaji, unlike his father, lacked morals and principles and carried out indiscriminate slaughter of muslim civilians. Even then Aurangzeb had no intention of murdering him, but he started calling names to Holy Prophet p.b.u.h in front of him, the sentence of which was death.

In other words, he behaved like every other mughal.
 
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
Sambhaji, unlike his father, lacked morals and principles and carried out indiscriminate slaughter of muslim civilians. Even then Aurangzeb had no intention of murdering him, but he started calling names to Holy Prophet p.b.u.h in front of him, the sentence of which was death.

Aurangzeb's behavior with Shivaji wasn't exactly kosher either. He had the chance to turn Shivaji into a loyal ally and subordinate after the treaty of Purandar, which Jai Singh had worked extremely hard to bring about. Instead he let his arrogance and desire to put the Rajputs "in their place" ruin a treaty plunging his empire into a conflict which would sap its resources and be the cause of its downfall.

Had Aurangzeb instead been conciliatory and dignified as was required of him, and in the traditions of his great grandfather, and put his empire's interests ahead of his own ego, history would likely have been very different.

Aurangzeb was most certainly a proud man with strict and rigid notions of personal discipline. He was an excellent general. But a great statesman and ruler he was not. His policies provoked eminently wealthy communities into revolt, and his policies ruined the ability of the Mughals to control the Deccan. Meanwhile he did little to fundamentally improve the situation at home. Aurangzeb was the scion of great ruler (or atleast one great ruler) and recipient of a vast and powerful legacy. But he himself was not great in any sense of the word. He certainly wasn't blindingly incompetent like say a Caligula, but he was at best an average ruler, and to most people well below the standard of a good one.
 
Joined Nov 2015
157 Posts | 1+
Qatar
The noted Indian scholar and historian, Dr Bishambhar Nath Pande, ranked among the very few Indians and fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be little careful when dealing with the Muslim rule in India that lasted for almost 1000 years. Dr Pande passed away on 1 June 1998 and Impact International of London (July 1998) wrote the following obituary [at the end of the article], which we think sheds some light into some of the myths on Indian history, such as on Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, created by the British with the clear objective of divide and rule:
The Muslim rule in India lasted for almost 1000 years. How come then, asked the British historian Sir Henry Elliot, that Hindus 'had not left any account which could enable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them'? Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight-volume History of India from its own historians (1867). His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with 'Muhammedans', generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions, their idols were mutilated, their temples destroyed, they were forced into conversions and marriages, and were killed and massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants. Thus Sir Henry, and scores of other Empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu versus Muslim history of India, and their lies became history.
However, the noted Indian scholar and historian, Dr Bishambhar Nath Pande, who passed away in New Delhi on 1 June, ranked among the very few Indians and fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be a little careful when dealing with such history. He knew that this history was 'originally compiled by European writers' whose main objective was to produce a history that would serve their policy of divide and rule.
Lord Curzon (Governor General of India 1895-99 and Viceroy 1899-1904, d.1925) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they 'should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened'.
Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884-88), was advised by the Secretary of State in London that the 'division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage', and that he expected 'some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and on teaching material'.
'We have maintained our power in India by playing-off one part against the other,' the Secretary of State for India reminded yet another Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63), 'and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.'
In his famous Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr Pande said: 'Thus under a definite policy the Indian history books text-books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval [i.e. Muslim] period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule. And there were no common factors [between Hindus and Muslims] in social, political and economic life.'
Therefore, Dr Pande was extra careful. Whenever he came across a 'fact' that looked odd to him, he would try to check and verify rather than adopt it uncritically.
He came across a history text-book taught in the Anglo-Bengali College, Allahabad which claimed that 'three thousand Brahmins had committed suicide as Tipu wanted to convert them forcibly into the fold of Islam'. The author was a very famous scholar, Dr Har Prashad Shastri, head of the department of Sanskrit at Calcutta University. (Tipu Sultan (1750-99), who ruled over the South Indian state of Mysore (1782-99), is one of the most heroic figures in Indian history. He died on the battlefield, fighting the British.)
Was it true? Dr Pande wrote immediately to the author and asked him for the source on which he had based this episode in his text-book. After several reminders, Dr Shastri replied that he had taken this information from the Mysore Gazetteer. So Dr Pande requested the Mysore University vice chancellor, Sir Brijendra Nath Seal, to verify for him Dr Shastri's statement from the Gazetteer. Sir Brijendra referred his letter to Prof Srikantia who was then working on a new edition of the Gazetteer. Srikantia wrote to say that the Gazetteer mentioned no such incident and, as a historian himself, he was certain that nothing like this had taken place. Prof Srikantia added that both the prime minister and the commander-in-chief of Tipu Sultan were themselves Brahmins. He also enclosed a list of 136 Hindu temples which used to receive annual grants from the Sultan's treasury.
It transpired that Shastri had lifted this story from Colonel Miles' History of Mysore which Miles claimed he had taken from a Persian manuscript in the personal library of Queen Victoria. When Dr Pande checked further, he found that no such manuscript existed in Queen Victoria's library. Yet Dr Shastri's book was being used as a high school history text-book in seven Indian states, Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. So he sent his entire correspondence about the book to the vice chancellor of Calcutta University, Sir Ashutosh Chaudhary. Sir Ashutosh promptly ordered Shashtri's book out of the course. Yet years later, in 1972, Dr Pande was surprised to discover the same suicide story was still being taught as 'history' in junior high schools in Uttar Pradesh. The lie had found currency as a fact of history.
The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (born 1618, reigned 1658-1707) is the most reviled of all Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples and oppressor of Hindus, and a 'fundamentalist' too! As chairman of the Allahabad Municipality (1948-53), Dr Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some farmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr Pande thought, in view of Aurangzeb's fanatically anti-Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic and Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents and declared they were genuine farmans issued by Aurangzeb.
For Dr Pande this was a 'new image of Aurangzeb'; so he wrote to the chief priests of the various important temples, all over the country, requesting photocopies of any farman issued by Aurangzeb that they may have in their possession. The response was overwhelming; he got farmans from several principal Hindu and jain temples, even from Sikh Gurudwaras in northern India. These farmans, issued between 1659 and 1685, related to grant of jagir (large parcel of agricultural lands) to support regular maintenance of these places of worship.

Dr Pande's research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights and welfare of his non-Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their Muslims respondents and, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as necessary.
One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Banaras (Varanasi). That was a fact, but Dr Pande unravelled the reason for it. 'While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed.
'Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey on the palkis [palanquins]. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja [worship] all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.
'When Aurangzeb came to know of this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh [the elephant-headed god which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath's seat.'
The Rajas demanded salutary action, and 'Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant [head priest] be arrested and punished'. (B N Pande, Islam and Indian Culture, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 1987)

Dr Pande believed in the innate goodness of human nature. Despite all that senseless hate and periodical outbreak of anti-Muslim violence after independence, he remained an optimist. When one of the worst riots took place in 1979 in Ahmadabad, in which more than 2,000 Muslims were killed and 6,000 houses burnt, Dr Pande travelled there to see whether there was 'any humanity still alive'.
Yes, it was in one locality, Mewabhai Chaal, where he found that all the houses had been burnt down. Did they all belong to Muslims? No. Only 35 belonged to Muslims; some 125 belonged to Hindus, he was told. So, it meant, the arsonists came in two different waves; one destroying the Muslim houses and the other the Hindu houses? No, it was only one wave, said Kalayan Singh. That one, there, he pointed out to smoke billowing from what used to be his house and his tyre-shop. He was a Hindu and he had lost property and business worth 200,000 rupees.
The miscreants had asked him to point out the Muslim houses so they could spare the Hindu houses. Kalyan Singh refused, and watched as the mob set fire to all the houses - including his own. How could I betray my Muslim neighbours? he asked Dr Pande rhetorically.
Dr Pande also went to the Muslim students hostel. One-third of its residents were Hindus. "Come out all you Hindu students," yelled a murderous mob gathered outside the hostel. No, we won't, shouted back the Hindu students and locked the gate from inside. In the event, the entire hostel was evacuated by the army and then left to the mob to loot and burn. The Hindu students were told they could take with them their books and research papers. Dr Pande met a young DSc scholar, named Desai, who had left behind his more than three years' labour, a ready-for-typing dissertation, to be burnt by the arsonists. Desai said he couldn't think of saving his thesis while some of his Muslim friends were in similar position with their theses. A noble soul! Dr Pande who had been looking for humanity found it there as well.
The inhumanity did not lie in the Indian nature, but the nature had fallen victim to the evil heritage of colonial history. Few realised how 1000 years of their history had been stolen from them. Many tended to buy the fake and doctored version handed down to them as part of their colonial heritage. Some even saw a little political advantage in this trade. Dr Pande heard a leading Hindu Mahasabha politician and religious leader, Mahant Digvijaynath, telling an election meeting that it is written in the Qur'an that killing a Hindu was an act of goodness (thawab). Dr Pande called upon the Mahant (High Priest) and told him that he had read the Qur'an a few times but didn't find such a statement in it, and he had, therefore, brought with him several English, Urdu and Hindi translations of the Qur'an; so would he kindly point to him where exactly did the statement occur in the Qur'an?
Isn't it written there? said the Mahant. I haven't found it; if you have, please tell me, replied Dr Pande. Then what does it say? It speaks about love and brotherhood, about the oneness of mankind. What's ..... then? What is jizyah? How then India got partitioned? The Mahant went on asking, and Dr Pande kept on explaining, hoping the Mahant would correct himself. However, the Mahant's ideas were fixed, in prejudice and in ignorance.
Dr Pande himself had been a senior member of the ruling Congress party which he had joined at a very young age. He was a disciple of Gandhi, a friend of Nehru; he had taken part in each and every non-cooperation movement against the British and gone to jail eight times. The Congress was supposed to be an all-Indian nationalist platform and yet Dr Pande's party was hardly free from the bias and ignorance of a cleverly deconstructed history. The rise of militant Hindutva tendency is only recent, but before it all became overt, the Congress itself was doing the same, albeit a little covertly. All the horrific anti-Muslim carnage took place during more than four decades of Congress rule. The doors of the Babari Mosque were opened for Hindu worship during the tenure of Nehru's grandson, Rajiv Gandhi. The Mosque itself was pulled down during the regime of another Congress Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao.
Dr Pande was, however, just one individual. That made his work all the more important, not just from the Muslim but from the point of view of the entire country. India's deconstructed history is like a time bomb; unless it is defused, India cannot survive in one piece. Not for very long.
Bishambhar Nath Pande born on 23 December 1906 in the Madhya Pradesh of Umreth; member UP Legislative Assembly (1952-53); member UP Legislative Council (1972-74); twice member of the upper house, Rajya Sabha (1976 and 1982); Governor of Orissa state (1983-88); recipient of the highest national award Padma Shri (1976); author of several books, including The Spirit of India and The Concise History of Congress; died in New Delhi, 1 June 1998.
Courtesy: Impact International, London, Vol 28, July 1998, Copyright © 1998, All Rights Reserved.
 
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
IMHO, the best historian on Aurangzeb was the first. Jadunath Sarkar. He remains to this day one of the few scholars who is actually intimately familiar with the MASSIVE body of literature that exists around Aurangzeb. And we can see this given that he had to publish a multi-volume biography of the ruler. Modern academics rely almost completely on tertiary sourcing, and though modern Indian Historians have sought to completely ignore Sarkar's body of work due to his inconvenient opinions (which is where the oddity lies since his opinion was infinitely more informed than theirs) on the man. Most will for instance cite a SINGLE line of his entire compendium to "establish" his "bias" as a grounds to completely dismiss his work.
 
Joined Jun 2012
5,274 Posts | 105+
India
Sambhaji, unlike his father, lacked morals and principles and carried out indiscriminate slaughter of muslim civilians. Even then Aurangzeb had no intention of murdering him, but he started calling names to Holy Prophet p.b.u.h in front of him, the sentence of which was death.


Keeping aside Sambhajis supposed slaughter of Muslims (which is more like a creation of this post itself, not met by any kind of historical evidence), the stories of Sambhaji's lacked morals and principle aren't born by any strong historical evidence either. His administrative record rather reveals him to be an competent administrator (if not strategist) to the very last days he got caught by Mughals. But ofcourse when someone thinks that blasphemers deserve to be butchered mercilessly, then obviously it is useless to argue.
 
Joined Nov 2012
5,105 Posts | 385+
IMHO, the best historian on Aurangzeb was the first. Jadunath Sarkar. He remains to this day one of the few scholars who is actually intimately familiar with the MASSIVE body of literature that exists around Aurangzeb. And we can see this given that he had to publish a multi-volume biography of the ruler. Modern academics rely almost completely on tertiary sourcing, and though modern Indian Historians have sought to completely ignore Sarkar's body of work due to his inconvenient opinions (which is where the oddity lies since his opinion was infinitely more informed than theirs) on the man. Most will for instance cite a SINGLE line of his entire compendium to "establish" his "bias" as a grounds to completely dismiss his work.

what is this line? Which is the book and what was the crux of Sarkar's view? Secular or communal Aurangzeb?
 
Joined Dec 2014
2,188 Posts | 224+
autobahn
Last edited:
"Dr Pande's research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights and welfare of his non-Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their Muslims respondents and, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as necessary.
One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Banaras (Varanasi). That was a fact, but Dr Pande unravelled the reason for it. 'While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed.
'Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey on the palkis [palanquins]. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja [worship] all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.
'When Aurangzeb came to know of this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh [the elephant-headed god which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath's seat.'
The Rajas demanded salutary action, and 'Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant [head priest] be arrested and punished'. (B N Pande, Islam and Indian Culture, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 1987
"

This lie has been dealt with by Koenraad Elst, there is absolutely no basis for those fancy claims, except for plain lies. Let me quote Elst on this topic, also I suggest you read Elst if you want to get a truthful picture of mughal rule.

"One question which we can readily answer is, where did B.N. Pande get this story from? He himself writes: "Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, in his famous book, The Feathers and the Stones, has narrated this fact based on documentary evidence. So, we have to go one more step back in time to find this intriguing "documentary evidence". Let us turn to this book, now hard to find, to see what the documentary evidence is on which this whole wave of pro-Aurangzeb rumours is based, but which no one has cared to reproduce or even just specify. This is what Gandhian Congress leader Pattabhi Sitaramayya wrote in his prison diary:
"There is a popular belief that Aurangazeb was a bigot in religion. This, however, is combated by a certain school. His bigotry is illustrated by one or two instances. The building of a mosque over the site of the original Kasi Visveswara Temple is one such. A like mosque in Mathura is another. The revival of Jazia is a third but of a different order. A story is told in extenuation of the first event.
"In the height of his glory, Aurangazeb like any foreign king in a country, had in his entourage a number of Hindu nobles. They all set out one day to see the sacred temple of Benares. Amongst them was a Ranee of Cutch. When the party returned after visiting the Temple, the Ranee of Cutch was missing. They searched for her in and out, East, North, West and South but no trace of her was noticeable. At last, a more diligent search revealed a Tah Khana or an underground storey of the temple which to all appearances had only two storeys. When the passage to it was found barred, they broke open the doors and found inside the pale shadow of the Ranee bereft of her jewellery.
"It turned out that the Mahants were in the habit of picking out wealthy and bejewelled pilgrims and in guiding them to see the temple, decoying them to the underground cellar and robbing them of their jewellery. What exactly would have happened to their life one did not know. Anyhow in this case, there was no time for mischief as the search was diligent and prompt. On discovering the wickedness of the priests, Aurangazeb declared that such a scene of robbery could not be the House of God and ordered it to be forthwith demolished. And the ruins were left there.
"But the Ranee who was thus saved insisted on a Musjid being built on the ruined and to please her, one was subsequently built. That is how a Musjid has come to exist by the side of the Kasi Visweswar temple which is no temple in the real sense of the term but a humble cottage in which the marble Siva Linga is housed. Nothing is known about the Mathura Temple.
"This story of the Benares Musjid was given in a rare manuscript in Lucknow which was in the possession of a respected Mulla who had read it in the Ms. and who though he promised to look it up and give the Ms. to a friend, to whom he had narrated the story, died without fulfilling his promise. The story is little known and the prejudice, we are told, against Aurangazeb persists."
So now, we finally know where the story comes from: an unnamed mullah friend of an unnamed acquaintance of Sitaram ayya's knew of a manuscript, the details of which he took with him in his grave. This is the "document" on which secularist journalists and historians base their "evidence" of Aurangzeb's fair and secularist disposition, overruling the evidence of archaeology and the cold print of the Maasiri Alamgiri, to "explode the myth" of Islamic iconoclasm spread by the "chauvinist" Hindutva propagandists. Now you just try to imagine what the secularists and their mouthpieces in Western academe would say if Hindus offered evidence of this quality"

Why did Aurangzeb Demolish the Kashi Vishvanath?
 
Joined Aug 2014
1,273 Posts | 193+
pakistan
Keeping aside Sambhajis supposed slaughter of Muslims (which is more like a creation of this post itself, not met by any kind of historical evidence), the stories of Sambhaji's lacked morals and principle aren't born by any strong historical evidence either. His administrative record rather reveals him to be an competent administrator (if not strategist) to the very last days he got caught by Mughals. But ofcourse when someone thinks that blasphemers deserve to be butchered mercilessly, then obviously it is useless to argue.
Sambhaji had slayed innocent people, condoned casual ...., torture, arson, looting and massacre of Muslims
 
Joined Mar 2013
15,541 Posts | 714+
India
what is this line?
Huh?

Which is the book and what was the crux of Sarkar's view?
Not a Book. MANY books. History of Aurangzib, 5 volumes. Fall of the Mughal Empire - 4 volumes! India of Aurangzib. Anecdotes of Aurangzib. Shivaji. Shivaji and his Times. The House of Shivaji.

Sarkar's views are nuanced and complex. Let me first make something clear. I have NOT read the entirety of his work. My criticism of others is that they rush to judgement on him, doing the same. What I have read of Sarkar shows extraordinary nuance. For starters, Sarkar is a chronicler. Its easy today to forget the problems Sarkar faced. He was not merely consulting sources on the life of Aurangzeb, he was actively compiling them. He would go to cities, towns, villages - wherever someone had some sort of documentation or record, and he would compile it. He didn't just sit in a library, go to the shelf on Mughal History, and compile his work, with occasional visits to the National Archives.

Secular or communal Aurangzeb?
Sarkar both criticized and praised Aurangzeb. He wrote before the crude definitions of communal and secular had permeated our academic discourse, and before Marxist Historiography utterly dominated it. Which means he didn't see things in simplistic, and binary characterizations, where a person is one or the other. He criticized Aurangzeb for his bigotry. One line in particular about how Aurangzeb became more bigoted as he grew older is thrown around almost indiscriminately by our Marxist Historians (Aligarh school in particular) to "discredit" him (think about what it means when a SINGLE line is what ALL of them quote from essentially 10 books worth of material!). But Sarkar wasn't mindlessly critical of Aurangzeb. His arguments were located in a strong grounding of facts and records (Imperial and regional). He praised Aurangzeb's military capabilities, his political skills, and he also made several arguments defending Aurangzeb from criticisms which had existed as part of popular tradition at his time, but which he felt were incorrect.

Sarkar's great tragedy is that he alienated both wings of latter day academics. His works on Shivaji were like his work on Aurangzeb. Well researched, well organized and most importantly - nuanced. Unfortunately, nuance was something many people hated. Shivaji was a "hero", even a demigod of sorts for a lot of people, who were not happy with Sarkar seeking to praise Shivaji where he felt necessary, but criticize him where not. For instance I think he criticized Shivaji for the killing of Afzal Khan (I might be wrong here though, about Sarkar's point of criticism).

Either way, Sarkar didn't fit into neat pigeonholes or camps, and so was essentially disavowed by one side, and not rehabilitated by the other. So far as I can recall, the most cogent defense of his work was written by C. Colin Davies, and that was a LONG time ago. People like Kaushik Roy have noted that he has been forgotten by many historians. Part of the problem is that Sarkar's area of focus was war, military history and battles and also emphasized their prominence in historical trends. Indian historians, particularly of the post-modernist variety and the marxist persuasion, like to dismiss the importance of "events" in the study of trends, and so prefer to ignore historians of certain cadres, like military historians. The other ofcourse is the degree of nuance that Sarkar had on Aurangzeb, which sits uncomfortably with many academics, who would like to see characters like Aurangzeb reduced to near cartoonish figures of being either wholly good or wholly bad, mostly because of political ideologies in aligning with "secular" or "communal" arguments
 
Joined Nov 2012
5,105 Posts | 385+
Sambhaji had slayed innocent people, condoned casual ...., torture, arson, looting and massacre of Muslims

Which is good someone needed to take revenge on them for the atrocities committed on Hindus for 7 centuries. However, sadly this is not true.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top