Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth

This book will really challenge your notion of Aurangzeb as a Hindu-hating bigot, as was first pushed by the British to create a wedge between Hindus and Muslims, and then by right-wing Hindu nationalists to propagate their idea of a non-secular Hindu India. Aurangzeb was no saint, but his destruxtion of temples is vastly exaggerated and wrongly implied to belie hate for Hinduism- they were a result of war between kingdoms, not religion.

The best book , open and clear , highly recommend it . Truth will prevail and Truth is bound to prevail

A fascinating and well-researched study of what is actually known about the life of the Mughal Emperor. Timely and important to read in order to develop a balanced view of the life of the controversial ruler. As current political forces in India (and Pakistan) use and misuse inherited as well as freshly created stories of Aurangzeb's rule this short book draws the reader back to the realities of the socio-political standards and ethics of his time rather than attempt to judge a medieval ruler by contemporary standards. Mughal relations with prominent Rajput maharajas as well as the Maratha "king" Shivaji are covered as well.

The fact that a political party is trying to discredit this author based on myths can only increase this book's sales. I actually found this book to be very well researched and closer to reality than a myth perpetuated by a religious political party. Aurangzeb was no worse than peers of his time. He employed people from all religions in his administration and was equally brutal to all religions, including his own family. The Mughals were unmatched by any race or religion in architecture (Taj Mahal, Shalimar Gardens, Lahore Fort) and that is their contribution to the World. They were an expansionist dynasty and under Aurangzeb their empire reached the widest, even larger than present day India. Eagerly looking forward to the next book by this author.

An empathetic account of a misunderstood emperor. Truly well researched and presented in a manner that forces you to look beyond the stereotype. An eye opener.

Don't waste your time and money. This book is basically peddling biased hinduphobic opinions as History. She is trying to justify the acts of Aurangzeb in a similar fashion as defence attorneys defend wife beating husbands. eg. Maybe it wasn't that bad. See, you survived with just a few broken bones and a broken nose. May be he did it because you provoked him. You should have cooked him good food. He is just like his other drinking buddies who all behave in the same way. Or may be he was just a tad difficult to please than others. See, he also bought you flowers! He wasn't bad all the time. He is just misunderstood!

This is a sympathetic, short on detail, biography of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb is considered by many to be a religious bigot, who destroyed Hindu temples, killed a Sikh guru during his reign, and overall had negative attitude toward non-muslims in India. The author admits that some of it is true, however she challenged most of this narrative, by suggesting that Aurangzeb wasn't radically different from his predecessors. The basic premise of author's argument is that Aurangzeb is being judged by today's standards. And it is politically convenient for many to give bigot label to Aurangzeb. She cites evidence of how Hindu nobility increased during his reign. It is true that Aurangzeb destroyed some Hindu temples but there were some special circumstances. I wish the author would have written in more detail. Overall it's is an interesting glimpse into Aurangzeb's life.

in the case of a ruler like Aurangzeb - one praise-stalin- many produced praise for himso among these eulogies his confirmation of good character by guru govinda Singhsingh was defeated and trying to get favor of Aurangzebbut the story is not at all what it is- the sikh empire was resistance to their invasion and was a constant struggle of life. not only that Aurangzeb murdered the sikh line and govinda Singhs four sons. so it was the opposite of this indological claims- this author makes ludicrous claims based on bias testimony. it is true one sided may exist in the sense -Aurangzeb did not approve of the taj and considered it lascivious and not at all financially prudent. his rationale is is reintroduction of taxes for non believers. there is no possible anyone of these faiths could have reconciled with sikhs at the very least because they were being eradicated by Aurangzeb and the rest. but especially him. his hatred for temples and icons however was in line with his beliefs. it was not out of character based on what he believed. her portrayal is completely fictional and agenda based it would seem based on the rationale of this character she portrayed Aurangzeb to be.

I am what time, circumstance, history, have made of me, certainly, but I am, much more than that. So are we all.      - James BaldwinAurangzeb, the man and the myth, is a concise biography of one of the most hated men in Indian history. And in this book the author has tried to unravel the complex personality of Aurangzeb, without showing any kind of bias. Aurangzeb Alamgir, The sixth mughal emperor of hindustan, son of Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal, was the most controversial and hated Mughal ruler of India. And the reason for this dislikeness for him is that, Aurangzeb, was considered as a bigot, killer of hindus, who demolished uncountable number of hindu and jain temples, who imposed the jizya tax on Hindus, and the brutality with which he killed his own brothers, for ascending the Mughal throne.Yes it is absolutely correct that Aurangzeb had done all the things which is mentioned above, but we have to keep in mind that Aurangzeb was a man of his times, not ours.Though Aurangzeb was died in the year 1707 after ruling the mughal empire for almost 50 years, but some ignorant politicians and those people who completed their graduation from the 'Institute of Ignorance' are not letting aurangzeb die peacefully and they are using aurangzeb's name, time and again to create the rift between the Hindus and Muslims, and they also portraits the latter as the traitor community, which is very harmful for the world largest democracy.The language of the book is easy to read, and I recommend this book only to those readers who have the capacity to think rationally and who are not easily get influenced by the false propaganda and fake stories.My Ratings : ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5)I hope you like the Review, thanks for reading, Jai Hind.

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?

I would suggest this book to anyone who is interested in unbiased history.It indeed lifts off the image of a bigoted ruler from Aurangzeb's shoulder.Myths busted. His life has been presented through unbiased lenses.Everyone who falls prey to the claims of fascists that Aurangzeb was an anti hindu ruler, this book would definitely bust those lies.

Quite a useful Book. This book comes as a welcome change to glimpse the life of one of the most misquoted, misunderstood, misrepresented and misinterpreted men of all times: All thanks to the compilers of history books of Modern India!

I read the entire book, though at times I felt like leaving it midway. Comfortable reading and language. However, it seemed that the author was somehow trying to justify many of Aurangzeb's wrongdoings (which are correctly depicted in the book) with strange logic and arguments. The agenda of showing Aurangzeb in a positive light seemed predetermined rather than natural progression of the facts. Most of Aurangzeb and Mughal Empire as mentioned in this book are well known and profusely written in various mediums. According to me it's an average and rather biased piece of work.