Aurangzeb - The Great Ruler

[Hamza913]

Why couldnt they ?That is the question in there .They had lost the support of some major section of Indian society .

Aurangzeb destroyed all those reputation of his predecessors.

No, they couldn't control it because they were incompetent.

 

[Hamza913]

A man who killed his entire family for the sake of power on the other hand the article propogates him as a good pious muslim " forget good muslim ruler this isnt even a definition of a good human being ! My definition is one has to be a good human to be a good muslim

Being a good human is nothing more than a social construct with no actual requirements. It changes with the times.

He read the Quran frequently, loved to rewrite it and implemented Sharia law. He was a good Muslim.

The rest of his family would have just as easily killed him to reach the throne, he didn't have much of a choice other than to fight or die. Not to mention many of his family members were scumbags.

 

[jetray]

Not true at all. His empire was the most powerful force in all of India at the the time, and he did defeat the Marathas (although it was a pyrrhic victory).

He spent most of the time putting down rebellions. Most of the kings refused tribute. Marathas became stronger & stronger that post his demise they become national level players. I dont know how that makes strong when he cannot enforce his will.

 

[Jackdaws]

Aurangzeb - the greatest Mughal? Absurd. He bankrupted the Mughal Empire. His personal piety has nothing to do with his tactical or strategic or financial nous as a ruler - he was an abject failure in all 3. And within a few years of his death, Mughals were replaced by the Marathas as the pre-eminent power in India.

 

[Mian Babban]

Aurangzeb was the last competent and capable person that Mughal family had to offer to India. The quality of rest of the Mughals had very much degraded. The overrated, over-hyped Dara Shikoh, was an intellectual but very inept in social interactions and leadership (he was also a haughty person). The other brothers were average men. Our Khushal Khan Khattak and Aimal Khan Afridi (both of whom had served in Mughal army) had realized that Mughals were no longer the Mughals of Timur and Babur times in spirits and vigour, and unlike Akbar's times, the offices of Mughal empire were rusted with corruption and inefficiency. Marathas also sensed that the legs of Mughal empire were shaking. The decline of Mughal rule is linked with decline in the quality of their nobility majority of whom were scheming effeminates and very few were reliable and able generals.

The reign of Aurangzeb's reign is divided into two phases, first twenty five years and the last twenty five years. The last twenty-five years, in which Mughals were engaged in wars with Marathas in South, totally exposed the rustiness and helplessness of the Mughals. The natural decline of the Mughal dynasty had already started within life time of Aurangzeb. The other great dynasty in the neighborhood, the Safavids, also had degenerated along the same lines and were standing on their last legs. After death of Aurangzeb, the Mughal dynasty should have been replaced with another fresh dynasty but they were allowed to keep the Delhi throne for another 150 years.

. And within a few years of his death, Mughals were replaced by the Marathas as the pre-eminent power in India.

Marathas were merely raiders , not administrators and were not good replacement of Deccani sultanates and Mughals by any means. They caused disruption, anarchy chaos all over the India through their raids for chauth and were not interested in administering the areas from which they were extracting chauth. Thats why people in those times longed for the return of golden age of Mughals and prayed for the safety from Maratha raiders and other trouble makers and anarchic forces.

 

[Hamza913]

He spent most of the time putting down rebellions. Most of the kings refused tribute. Marathas became stronger & stronger that post his demise they become national level players. I dont know how that makes strong when he cannot enforce his will.

He had the largest empire in India. He was the most powerful man in India, nothing can change that. You haven't said anything that proves he wasn't a powerful or capable ruler.

 

[Jackdaws]

Marathas were merely raiders , not administrators and were not good replacement of Deccani sultanates and Mughals by any means. They caused disruption, anarchy chaos all over the India through their raids for chauth and were not interested in administering the areas from which they were extracting chauth. Thats why people in those times longed for the return of golden age of Mughals and prayed for the safety from Maratha raiders and other trouble makers and anarchic forces.

Do you have a source for this?

 

[Mian Babban]

He read the Quran frequently, loved to rewrite it and implemented Sharia law. He was a good Muslim.

He was a man of sound character , did not waste himself in wine and women like other Mughal princes so he was indeed an anomaly. But he was neither great nor greatest among the Mughals and among all the Muslim rulers of India. He was merely the last competent king that Mughal family had to offer to india.

 

[HAIDER]

Seem he realized his sin before he die ... he failed to justify the killing of Hindus . If he really killed then what a shame.


Letter to Prince Muazzam:

“My years have gone by profitless. God has been in my heart yet my darkened eyes have not recognized his light. There is no hope for me in the future. You should accept my last will. It should not happen that Musalmans be killed and the blame for their death rest upon this useless creature. I have greatly sinned and know not what torment awaits me. I commit you and your sons to the care of God and bid you farewell. May peace of God be upon you.”

Letter to Prime Azam:

“I know not what punishment be in store for me to suffer. Though my trust be in the mercy of goodness of God, I deplore my sins. When I have lost hope in myself, how can I hope in others? Come what will, I have launched my bark upon the waters! Farewell! Farewell!”

Letter to Kambakh:

“Soul of my soul. Now I am going alone. I grieve for your helplessness. But what is the use? Every torment I have inflicted, every sin I have committed, every wrong have done, I carry the consequence with me. Strange that I came with nothing into the world and now go away with this stupendous caravan of sins! Whatever I look I see only God. You should accept my last will. It should not happen that Musalmans be killed and the reproach should fall on the head of this useless creature. I commit your and your sons to the care of God and bid you farewell. I am sourly troubled; May the peace of God be upon you.”

 

[Jackdaws]

He had the largest empire in India. He was the most powerful man in India, nothing can change that. You haven't said anything that proves he wasn't a powerful or capable ruler.

Yes, in terms of size - Mughal empire was at its peak during Aurangzeb's rule. But his overlong and failed Southern campaign which drained the treasury - shows that he was an incapable ruler.

 

[Mian Babban]

An interesting article on Aurangzeb that i want to share with you guys

A Portrait of Aurangzeb More Complex than Hindutva’s Political Project Will Admit
https://thewire.in/113650/aurangzeb-audrey-truschke-review/
Also
https://thewire.in/19341/a-hindu-soldiers-aurangzeb/
A Hindu Soldier’s Aurangzeb

 

[Hamza913]

Yes, in terms of size - Mughal empire was at its peak during Aurangzeb's rule. But his overlong and failed Southern campaign which drained the treasury - shows that he was an incapable ruler.

No it doesn't. His empire remained intact until he died, and several years after that. It was in 1719, when Muhammad Shah took power, that things started declining rapidly. That was 12 years after Aurangzeb died.

 

[Jackdaws]

No it doesn't. His empire remained intact until he died, and several years after that. It was in 1719, when Muhammad Shah took power, that things started declining rapidly. That was 12 years after Aurangzeb died.

Are you suggesting he did not drain the Mughal treasury?

 

[Hamza913]

Are you suggesting he did not drain the Mughal treasury?

He did use up large amounts of it, but the Mughals didn't become bankrupt by any means. Jizya ensured that.

 

[Jackdaws]

He did use up large amounts of it, but the Mughals didn't become bankrupt by any means. Jizya ensured that.

Ok - would you call a ruler who drains the state treasury to the brink of bankruptcy and imposes a tax on a section of his population for their religious beliefs a capable ruler?