Had he not bankrupted the State in figthing the Maratha guerrillas, the English would not have been able to come in thru the back door.
I agree with most of the points you have noted in your post. But, Aurangzeb's deeds were not responsible for the rise of english in Hindustan. Instead, it was Nawab Alivardy Khan of Bengal whose actions were directly responsible for weakening the political fabrics of Bengal. He was the Foujdar of Bihar appointed by Malik Suja-ud-Din Khan, the Subedar of Bengal. But, upon the death of his master and mentor, he conspired with Delhi Mughal PM to appoint and recognize him as the legal Subedar of Bengal instead of Malik Sarfaraz Khan, son of the deceased.
Subsequently, Malik Sarfaraz was kiilled in a battle. This event made Mir Habib, the Foujdar of Orissa to conspire with the Marathas and call them to regain Orissa for him. War between Bengal and Maratha continued for long ten years before a compromise was reached.
During wartime, a ruler becomes very weak and starts to appease his generals and the feudal Lords. This is how the political fabrics of Bengal were destroyed and the Bengal govt became weak. Alivardy had all the qualities of a great ruler and a great general, but he should not have usurped the throne of Bengal. He was never defeated in any battle against the Marathas. The problem was that the Marathas never gave him a frontal battle, but were always skirmishing from behind. Well, it was typical of Maratha heroes all the time.
If Alivardy had supported Malik Sarfaraz, the subsequent history would have been quite different. When Alivardy died, the throne went to his eldest but ignorant grandson Siraj-ud-Dowlah. I checked many history books to know why the throne did not go to the father of Siraj.
Nawab Alivardy had no sons, but had three daughters named Ghoseti Begun, Amina Begum and ****** Begum. These three sisters were married to the three sons of Haji Ahmed, the elder brother of Alivardy. They were Nawazish Muhammad, Haji Jainuddin and *****.
All these three died before Alivardy himself died. The second son-in-law Jainuddin, who was the Foujdar of Bihar, and father of Siraj was killed by a group of Pathans of Bengal in his own palace when the Foujdar invited them there for a Party. In reality, Jainuddin was trying to woo this group led by Mustafa Khan to work for him. This group was previously expelled from the army of Nawab.
If Jainuddin was alive when Alivardy died, naturally the throne would have gone to him. Siraj was only 22 yrs old, but his father was probably 45 yrs old. Even if other things remain same, the seniority makes a real difference.
The generals who had betrayed Siraj would not have dared to do so with his father. He, a middle aged man, certainly knew more about politics and he had many acquintances and well wishers. He certainly also had his spy networks. Simply speaking, the history would have been different in such a case, because a Plassey conspiracy was not possible in such a situation.
So, it was not Aurangzeb's deeds in the 17th Century, but the deeds of Alivardy Khan in the mid 18th century that acted as a catalyst to bring the bloody British to rule over Hindustan. It was our bad luck, but we cannot change all those events now. However, we should see the historical events in their proper perspectives.
