Last words of Aurangzeb on his death-bed

[Capt.Popeye]

Its also said that his last words were-''After me the deluge'' or ''My life has been a faiulure''
He was a curious character-Determined,brave and capable but narrowminded and lacking in vision.He antagonized everybody -The afghans,jats,sikhs,rajputs and of course the marathas.

That had to do with the fact that Aurangzeb was a very rigid-minded person with an exceedingly austere mind-set.

@Contrarian, this is for you too:
Years ago; on a visit to his mazaar (grave-site) on the outskirts of Aurangabad, my mother (who had studied history) pointed out some-thing written up there. That was the intructions for how his Mazaar shouuld be built; the dimensions, that it should be open to the sky and even the Budget for it: 12 Rupees and some annas (can't remember the exact figure).
But it just turned out a simple slab of Marble (of not very great quality) laid over him!
Aurangzeb was not popular in his family either but he had reasons for that!
He believed that his father was a waster and poor administrator who had dipped copiously into the treasury to construct the TajMahal; which was useless to the ruled praja/awaam.
That might help bring some perspective on how to view Aurangzeb more holistically; which we should do.

As @Anubis said earlier; prominent and powerful people in history tend to have both ardent admirers and implacable foes. Who then color them in their own views. Aurangzeb was one such.

 

[Contrarian]

That had to do with the fact that Aurangzeb was a very rigid-minded person with an exceedingly austere mind-set.

@Contrarian, this is for you too:
Years ago; on a visit to his mazaar (grave-site) on the outskirts of Aurangabad, my mother (who had studied history) pointed out some-thing written up there. That was the intructions for how his Mazaar shouuld be built; the dimensions, that it should be open to the sky and even the Budget for it: 12 Rupees and some annas (can't remember the exact figure).
But it just turned out a simple slab of Marble (of not very great quality) laid over him!
Aurangzeb was not popular in his family either but he had reasons for that!
He believed that his father was a waster and poor administrator who had dipped copiously into the treasury to construct the TajMahal; which was useless to the ruled praja/awaam.
That might help bring some perspective on how to view Aurangzeb more holistically; which we should do.

As @Anubis said earlier; prominent and powerful people in history tend to have both ardent admirers and implacable foes. Who then color them in their own views. Aurangzeb was one such.

Not saying he was the devil incarnate.
He however did create issues for Hindus. That much is undeniable.

Whatever his mindset, it does not imply/give him pass to be called a good king if a major part of his subjects were unhappy with his rule.

 

[Nassr]

Nobody knew about Pakistan back then. Civilization belongs to Humanity, not contemporary nation states.

Such generalization is a euphemized abstract postulation and as somebody aptly said, out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing can ever be made. The civilizations may euphemistically belong to collective humanity but were formed by a collection of geographically co-located humans, different from humans of different civilizations holding different identities. This is a real world out here and I am neither from Mesopotamian civilization (Iraq) nor from Egyptian civilization (Egypt) which were formed by the people who lived in those places and over a period of time created the nations states they now live in. Indus Valley Civilization is my heritage and its descendents, over a period of time became what they are now and named the land Pakistan. You may be happy to remain part of a euphemised humanity that you know as one, I am happy to remain as only a Pakistani and a descendent of this great civilization. You may like to take your philosophy of oneness of mankind and may discuss it with Adam whose children slept together to form the human race of bastards.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Not saying he was the devil incarnate.
He however did create issues for Hindus. That much is undeniable.

Whatever his mindset, it does not imply/give him pass to be called a good king if a major part of his subjects were unhappy with his rule.

He created issues for whoever his hard, rigid and implacably austere vision of life could not accept.

About being considered a 'Good King' or not he cared not 'a fig'. He ruled as he wanted to. And remained rather consistent at that. Which is why he achieved both success and failures in his own time.

In any case Kings of that time were not exactly "popularity/ Gallup Poll" driven !

 

[Nassr]

bro , there was a war conduct in ancient india... though when a state wins over other state it was just a change in the dynasty but ordinary people were not murdered nor they were forced to change their religion nor the temples were destroyed .....ifyou visit south india once u cansee many temples which where destroyed by muslim invaders ,the butchering of people and the horrible ways they employed in order to convert the native people...soldeirs being killed in a war is different from armies going on rampages on villages and towns obliterating every hindu structure , kiling people and raping women....

I think you need to read your own history full of untold butchery before you even start accusing others. Mahabharata, according to your own historians, cost over 1.6 billion human lifes for the so-called change of a king or a dynasty. 100,000 were killed when Ashoka destroyed only the kalingas and this is just one more battle. Please understand the brutalities committed by your own before you exaggeratingly accuse others of the same. Tum mein se koi bhi sati-savitri paida nahin hua tha - sab ke haath apnay hi khoon se rangay huey thay. Ganga mein ashnan karo, triveni sangam shayed tum logon ke liye hi bana tha.

Sindu>Hindu>Indu(s)>India

Sindu remains in Pakistan and the rest of the shmuck remains east of Sindhu river system into the Gangetic heartland known as Hindu>Indu(s)>India

 

[kurup]

Man created religions,religions created gods,religions and gods then conquered men.

Aa pattu full angu adich matiyallo ...

 

[Bang Galore]

Not saying he was the devil incarnate.
He however did create issues for Hindus. That much is undeniable.

Whatever his mindset, it does not imply/give him pass to be called a good king if a major part of his subjects were unhappy with his rule.

I preface my reply with the caveat that history should not be read by standards & ethics that exist now but by what it was in the period of the subject in question.

Aurangzeb's position in history is also defined by the comparison with his great grandfather Akbar who showed a level of tolerance that allowed for an alternate vision of rule by a Muslim king. His own brother Dara Shikoh was a man much more moulded in Akbar's nature and a comparison with him also tends to have Aurangzeb read harshly. Indeed one of his own sons(also called Akbar) was persuaded by the Rajputs to take on his father(didn't get far with it though) precisely because they offered up Akbar's vision as the alternate to that of Aurangzeb and that was a common view of most of the non-Muslim populace. While Shah Jahan is often blamed for depleting the royal treasury by monument building, Aurangzeb did the same by fighting wars on the Deccan which ultimately sounded the death-knell of the great Mughal empire. His advice to his sons not to fight among themselves & his attempt to prevent the fight by physically separating the sons by distance(and which didn't work) was borne out of the realisation that he provided them with the worst possible example and he feared going through the very same pain that he inflicted on his father. His poor position in history is finalised by the demise of the great empire shortly after his death, largely on account of his own actions. He was undoubtedly a very pious man but simply didn't have the largeness of vision which was necessary to run such a great empire. His tomb(which can be read many ways) is indicative of the very smallness of the vision, good enough for a pious man but unimaginative for a great emperor.

 

[acetophenol]

Aa pattu full angu adich matiyallo ...

nammalum onu shine cheythote mashe!

 

[illusion8]

Seriously op, why bother about a dead @hole?.

 

[Nassr]

I have not seen rulers seen wage wars on another just for their wives, like some Muslim kings did in India. If u mention Ramayana , yes, war ends on the side on Dharma(Justice), and its a one off case.
Ther was strict rules on war. U cannot wage a war without informing ur enemy, no fight after sunset, not harming womens and cows after the war etc which were strictly enforced.
Even Pakistani rulers like Porus followed this kinda rules. There was honour and bravery in every war.
But it was not the case with some Islamic rulers!

All religions teach human values during peace and war. But then Chanakyas also writes Arthshastras. Have you read his vision of how to use women in order to acquire ascedancy on enemy and you must have read Ramayana describing sacrifice of hundreds of cown on return of Sita from Lanka. And I do not want to highlight certain aspects from the manu smriti.

 

[kurup]

nammalum onu shine cheythote mashe!

Then this is your glory moment man ..... I have also used that song somewhere ....

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

All religions teach human values during peace and war. But then Chanakyas also writes Arthshastras. Have you read his vision of how to use women in order to acquire ascedancy on enemy and you must have read Ramayana describing sacrifice of hundreds of cown on return of Sita from Lanka. And I do not want to highlight certain aspects from the manu smriti.

He writes about spying , knowing the advantages of the enemy, and what is the duty of king, general , his ministers . He wrote that the nation is supreme , even more than a national or religion.
Whats wrong in that/?
Sacrifice of cows? Thats new ! Guess u made it up :/

 

[itachiii]

I think you need to read your own history full of untold butchery before you even start accusing others. Mahabharata, according to your own historians, cost over 1.6 billion human lifes for the so-called change of a king or a dynasty. 100,000 were killed when Ashoka destroyed only the kalingas and this is just one more battle. Please understand the brutalities committed by your own before you exaggeratingly accuse others of the same. Tum mein se koi bhi sati-savitri paida nahin hua tha - sab ke haath apnay hi khoon se rangay huey thay. Ganga mein ashnan karo, triveni sangam shayed tum logon ke liye hi bana tha.



Sindu remains in Pakistan and the rest of the shmuck remains east of Sindhu river system into the Gangetic heartland known as Hindu>Indu(s)>India

soldeirs being killed in a war field is different from ordinary people being killed , butcherd and women being raped by the soldeirs of other country....as far as my knowledge goes no king (including ashoka ) did not kill /allowed his soldeirs to kill the ordinary people after winning over the enemy state......

 

[Contrarian]

He created issues for whoever his hard, rigid and implacably austere vision of life could not accept.

About being considered a 'Good King' or not he cared not 'a fig'. He ruled as he wanted to. And remained rather consistent at that. Which is why he achieved both success and failures in his own time.

In any case Kings of that time were not exactly "popularity/ Gallup Poll" driven !

That was not my point. My point is that in hindsight, we cannot consider him as a good king. There are reasons that the populace dislike him.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

That was not my point. My point is that in hindsight, we cannot consider him as a good king. There are reasons that the populace dislike him.

All that may be so, and with good reasons.
Even some 'Good Kings' have had very dark sides to them; which people have found very expedient to hide, deny or cover up in some form or other.
I do believe that in our overwhelming fascination with "Black" and "White" we lose sight of the "shades of grey" to our own detriment.