Hindu India's National Obsession With Aurangzeb's Cruelty

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 11 March 2025 I don't understand Hindu India's fixation on the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb and his cruelty. He was undoubtedly cruel. Renowned historian Professor Irfan Habib has called him the cruellest Mughal emperor. No one says that he had the heart of a saint. But remember, if the past, as any historian will tell you, is filled with bloodshed and cruelty; it's also filled with unrepeatable beauty. You cannot ignore the dark underbelly of human history; its immense suffering, violence, and brutality that have marked humanity's journey through time. But you cannot overlook the existence of unparalleled splendour and magnificence that has also graced the annals of the past. From remarkable works of art and literature to profound philosophical ideas and cultural achievements, the past offers glimpses of remarkable beauty that transcends time and remains an eternal testament to human creativity and resilience. We must acknowledge and learn from both the harrowing episodes and the irreplaceable wonders that history harbours and offers. (Aurangzeb/Files) ----- If Mughals wreaked havoc, they also aestheticized us. We must also remember that in the context of history, Aurangzeb is a relatively relatable and 'young' character/emperor whose cruelty is 'verdant' in the collective consciousness. He died only 300 years ago (1618-1707). What about Ashoka the Great? Even after embracing Buddhism following the Battle of Kalinga, Ashoka didn't completely abnegate violence. He ordered to burn his very young and nymphomaniac wife Tishyrakshita (Tissrakhita in Pali; Ashoka's fifth and last wife) who tried to seduce Ashoka's son Kunal whose mother was Padmavati. Kunal spurned Tishyarakshita's coquettish ways. Rebuffed, Tishyrakshita prevailed upon Ashoka to gouge out Kunal's beautiful eyes. Ashoka succumbed to her insistence and ordered to blind his own son. Look at the seductive power of a (beautiful) woman! But when it dawned on him that his wife was an incorrigible seductress who tried to seduce his son, he burnt her alive. The legendary British historian Sir Arnold Toynbee was of the view that the cruelty of the kings and emperors was often contextual as well as situational. Mind you, no one is extenuating Aurangzeb and absolving him of his shuddersome acts. But there are far better things to do than this national obsession with his sanguinary ways. Lastly, if sheer cruelty is the only yardstick, Jahangir was even more cruel than Aurangzeb. In his autobiography, Tuzk-e-Jahangiri, he himself wrote that he drew macabre pleasure while watching the spectacles of executions. His father, Akbar, didn't approve of his son's cruel pastimes. The cardinal issue is not Aurangzeb's cruelty. It's his projection as a communal Muslim, which he was not. Had he been communal, he'd not have been able to rule for half a century. Most of his army chieftains were Hindu. Personally, he fought only the Muslim rulers of Deccan for close to the last three decades of his life. People, who're condemning and reviling Aurangzeb, must read Audrey Truschke's "Aurangzeb: The Life And Legacy Of India's Most Controversial King." Widely reviled as a religious fanatic who sought to violently oppress Hindus, he is even blamed by some for setting into motion conflicts that would result in the creation of a separate Muslim state in South Asia. In her lively overview of his life and influence, Audrey Truschke offered a clear-eyed perspective on the public debate over Aurangzeb and made the case for why his often-maligned legacy deserved to be reassessed. Aurangzeb was arguably the most powerful and wealthiest ruler of his day. His nearly 50-year reign (1658–1707) had a profound influence on the political landscape of early modern India, and his legacy―real and imagined―continues to loom large in India and Pakistan today. Truschke evaluated Aurangzeb not by modern standards but according to the traditions and values of his own time, painting a picture of Aurangzeb as a complex figure whose relationship to Islam was dynamic, strategic, and sometimes contradictory. This book hit the stands in 2017 and invited students of South Asian history and religion into the world of the Mughal Empire, framing the contemporary debate on Aurangzeb's impact and legacy in accessible and engaging terms. Like Audrey Truschke, Sir Jadunath Sarkar also didn't call Aurangzeb a communal Muslim despite admiring Shivaji as the perpetual thorn in the flesh of Mughal empire in the Deccan and Aurangzeb's nemesis. Aurangzeb's edicts in Persian available at Itihaas Sanshodhak Mandal, Poona and Aurangabad don't depict him as a communal ruler. In fact, no ruler of that era, whether Shivaji or Maharana Pratap could be called communal. The commander of Rana Pratap's army was Hakim Khan, who fought valorously with him in the Battle of Haldighati and died in 1576. Ibrahim Khan Gardi was a South Indian Muslim general of the Maratha Confederacy. An expert in artillery, he initially served the Nizam of Hyderabad, before working for the Peshwa of the Maratha Confederacy. As a Maratha general, he commanded a force of 10,000 men, infantry and artillery. All erroneous projections are in vogue. Today's fanatic Hindus and pseudo-intellectuals, not knowing even a scintilla of their history, are re-writing history and adding interepolations. ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/hindu-india-obsession-aurangzeb-cruelty-ashok/d/134835 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism