Aurangzeb

Title: Aurangzeb – The Man and the Myth

Author: Audrey Truschke

Publisher: Viking Penguin, 2017 (First)

ISBN: 9780670089819

Pages: 189

Old wine in an old bottle – that is the impression one feels after reading this small book on the last great Mughal emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir. He was a controversial figure then, as now. All of India, with the exception of a bunch of Left-leaning career-historians, consider Aurangzeb as a tyrant who harassed and intimidated the non-Muslim, non-Sunni subjects in untold number of ways. This dislike comes out in more ways than one. ‘Aurangzeb ki Aulad’ (progeny of Aurangzeb) is an invective in India which one hurls against his opponent in the heat of the argument. The administration of Delhi changed the name of Aurangzeb Road in the city to APJ Abdul Kalam Road in 2015. Just because the emperor treated his non-Muslim, non-Sunni subjects so badly, his name is revered in Pakistan and other places where jihadists exert their vicious influence. The Mughals ruled over a vast empire, whose population outstripped the entirety of Europe in 1600. Supplicants from European courts literally begged for trading concessions from the Mughals. Aurangzeb was well known in the higher echelons of England at that time as evidenced in the heroic tragedy Aureng-zebe penned by the poet laureate John Dryden in 1675. This book is by a young author who seeks to clear the myths about the legendary king and bring out the truth. Wholesale whitewashing of Aurangzeb off all his heinous crimes is the outcome of this volume. Audrey Truschke is assistant professor of South Asian history at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey. Her teaching and research interests focus on the cultural, imperial and intellectual history of early modern and modern India (c.1500-present). Unfortunately, the primary source research of the book relies solely on printed editions and no new facts are mentioned anywhere.

Aurangzeb was the most pious Mughal king. But piety was never translated into righteousness in this cruel prince’s career. The mistreatment of his own father, Shah Jehan, is a case in point. Ya takht ya tabut (either the throne or the grave) was the prevailing maxim among brothers in the imperial household. The successful brother – not necessarily the eldest – usually killed or blinded his siblings in the struggle for succession. But extending this rationale for lusting after power to one’s own father was a trifle too much even for medieval sensibilities. The Sharif of Mecca declined to recognize Aurangzeb as the proper ruler of Hindustan and refused his financial gifts for several years until Shah Jehan was dead in his son’s captivity. Contrary to Islamic doctrine, Aurangzeb was a staunch believer in astrology and continued to consult astrologers till the end of his life. Like other princes of the era, he too was fond of shapely dancers and singers. Trushcke remarks about his whirlwind romance with a courtesan named Hirabai Zainabadi in Burhanpur that created ripples of palace gossip. He was enthusiastic in erecting fine mausoleums for his loved ones, just like other Mughal kings. Aurangzeb’s first wife, Dilras Banu Begum, died from complications following the birth of her fifth child and the king erected a fine tomb Bibi ka Maqbara at Aurangabad. Locals still call it ‘Poor man’s Taj’.

Aurangzeb’s transition to Puritanism after 1669 is clearly noted in the book. As part of his Deccan campaign, the capital was shifted to the South and the king and his entourage lived in tents thereafter for the rest of his life. His nomad ancestors had lived in tents and in a twist of fate, the world-seizer (alamgir) also spent his life in tents in the wilderness. He tried to ensure justice to the people, but corruption was widespread under the elusive quest for justice. Even Abdul Wahhab, the chief qazi (judge) and hence a moral guide to the empire, freely indulged in backhand dealings. Truschke makes a vain attempt to praise Aurangzeb for increasing the share of Hindu nobility from 22.5 per cent under Akbar to 31.6 per cent of the total. The real cause for this increase was the frantic attempt to incorporate the Maratha aristocracy into the Mughal nobility so as to co-opt them in the fight against the Deccan sultanates. Aurangzeb’s cruelty to Sambhaji, who was Shivaji’s son and captured by Mughal troops, is mentioned in the book. He was forced to wear funny hats and was led into court on camels. He then had Sambhaji’s eyes stabbed out with nails and later had him decapitated. His body was chopped to pieces and thrown to the dogs, while his head was stuffed with straw and displayed in cities throughout the Deccan (p.69). Aurangzeb at his typical best!

The author justifies all the wicked acts of Aurangzeb in a rather unabashed way. She somewhat assumes a ‘So-What?’ attitude to the emperor’s most heinous depredations. He banned public festivities in the kingdom. Truschke justifies it on concerns with public safety. He resorted to forcible conversion of Hindus. The author does not deny it, but counters it with the laughable claim that some individuals found compelling reasons to adopt Islam so as to climb Mughal hierarchy and conversions made people eligible for jobs reserved for Muslims. Thus, she indirectly admits that there was indeed discrimination of the worst kind. Aurangzeb executed several prominent members of the Shiite Mahdavi sect? No problem, the Mahdavis had political ambitions. He destroyed temples? No problem, they acted against imperial interests. He demolished Vishwanath temple at Benares in 1669 and Keshav Dev temple at Mathura in 1670? No problem, this was just to punish political missteps by the temple associates. Aurangzeb desecrated Ahmedabad’s Chintamani Parshwanath Jain temple? No problem, the evidence is fragmentary, incomplete or contradictory. Aurangzeb recalled all endowed lands given to Hindus and reserved all future land grants to Muslims only? No problem, this was possibly just a concession to the ulema (Muslim clergy). So goes the author’s justifications. Trushcke’s arguments can be summarized thus – Aurangzeb could have destroyed all the temples in India. He didn’t and hence you must be grateful to his generosity! This is as ridiculous as positing that since Hitler could have killed all the Jews in Germany but didn’t, is a valid reason the Jews must regard him as a level-headed great ruler.

The book devotes only a short space to Aurangzeb’s role in the scrapping of the Mughal kingdom which labored on for only 150 years after his death. It is wrong to ascribe all blame on a single person, but it is undeniable that the seeds of destruction was planted well within the lifetime of the last great Mughal. Truschke doesn’t mention anything about the slide towards disaster. Persians and Afghans robbed the country at their sweet will. Warlords roamed the kingdom and often kept the royal family in hostage. Mughal princesses were forced to dance without veil in front of their lustful eyes and lewd gestures. Emperor Shah Alam II’s eyes were gouged out of its sockets by the bare hands of such a warlord in a fit of rage. The penultimate Mughal king Akbar Shah II (r.1806-37) charged foreign visitors for an audience with him to make both ends meet. The last one, Bahadur Shah II sided against the British and ended up transported for life in Burma, while his lineage was brutally cut short by the arms of the British army. Thus ended the Mughal dynasty in 1857.

The book is a total disappointment because of the single-point agenda of the author in justifying Aurangzeb by whatever means. It includes a few colour paintings on the life of the emperor. The book includes a good index.

The book is recommended.

Rating: 2 Star