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.
Historically, for Bengal you are correct. Why I blame Aurangzeb for making it easy for East India Company is conclusion drawn from the following.
Shivaji had managed to create a small kingdom of Marathi speaking clans by liberating some territory from Bijapore in 1674. Aurangzeb invaded Deccan (South India) with the entire Moghal army in 1982 and by 1989 captured nearly all of south India including the Maratha lands. His control was however never complete and under queen Tarabai Maratha army managed to recapture their land including the capture of Malwa in 1705.
Within a few years of Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, the state’s writ shrank to Delhi and its environs. Mughal State was reduced to an empire in all but name. Nearly all subdedars and governors became independent. This was mainly because 18 years of war in the South had bankrupted the Moghal State of the wealth as well as military power and State had no stomach for waging war to enforce her authority.
Maratha exploited this weakness to the full. By 1713; only 6 years after death of Aurangzeb; Shahu’s (grandson of Shivaji) army reached Delhi and his commander managed to negotiate a very favorable treaty with the Moghal Emperor Farukhsiyar. Under the Peshwas (initially wazirs of the Maratha kings) Maratha power reached its zenith, by 1760 they controlled 1-milion square kilometers of the central and southern Indian territory including Punjab and Orissa. Despite their defeat at Panipat by Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1761; Marathas remained the foremost power in India until third Anglo Maratha war of 1818.
Nawab Murshid Quli Jaffar Khan became virtually independent Nawab of Bengal very soon after Aurangzeb's death because Moghal state had no will left to fight and recover lost territory. This resulted eventually East India Company taking over Bengal in 1757 after victory at Plassey.
In the battle of Buxor in 1762, combined armies of Nawab of Bengal, Nawab of Awadh and the Muhgal Emperor Shah Alam II, totaling 40,000 infantry and 18,000 cavalry fought East India company troops which numbered about 8,000 Europeans and Sepoys and lost.
This time no large scale desertions (such as by Mir Jaffar in Plassey) took place. This established East India Company as dominant power of India.
Considering that Moghal army up to Aurangzeb numbered in hundreds of thousands, it is logical to conclude that had Aurangzeb not exhausted the Moghal empire by wasting nearly 20 years in fighting South Indian states; result at Buxor would have been different.
Being a good Muslim makes you a good human being and you would probably go to heaven; but it would not necessarily make you an effective and powerful king. Akbar may have been a bad Muslim; but his army would have ruthlessly crushed any challenge to his authority.
However, in this forum our judgement gets clouded by religion. Hindus love Akbar because he was secular and many naïve Muslims love Aurangzeb because he was a good Muslim.
Regret to say that both the groups are guilty of judgmental error. Akbar was a good and powerful king because he gathered around himself men based on Merit regardless of religion. All of his nine jewels (Nav rattan) i.e. Abul Fazl, Faizi, Tansen, Birbal, Raja Todar Mal, Raja Man Singh, Abur Rahim Khan –e-Khanan, Fakir Aziuudin and Mulla Dopiaza were very competent and able men in their field. Akbar exploited their expertize to the full. Aurangzeb was not blessed with any of his great ancestor’s wisdom. That is why Akbar left a stable and rich empire for his progeny whereas Aurangzeb was the principal cause the down fall of the Muslim rule in India.
