Rise of the Mughal Empire and the Reign of Akbar the Great DOCUMENTARY

[Brar]

This guy Akbar was the worst of all kings of Mughals, a traitor kind of personality, the person who damaged the interest of the Muslims of his kingdom the most. The only Mughal king who was worth of respect was Aurangzeb Alamgir, the true warrior and before someone says he did this or that to his family members, I don't give a **** about what he did to his family members, in old times when you were a King you had to do be tough and do some crazy things here and there to consolidate your power and prove your dominance over your rivals.

So the most tolerent was the worst and the most intolerant was the best? Okay then. Hows life in Germany by the way? The german society a bit too tolerant for your liking perhaps?

 

[W.11]

So, do tell me, who was the most powerful emperor after Aurangazeb that lead the Mughal empire?

the king who succeeded him was able to manage the vast territorial extend of aurangzeb and successfully quelled all the rebellions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_I

regards

 

[Chhatrapati]

the king who succeeded him was able to manage the vast territorial extend of aurangzeb and successfully quelled all the rebellions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_I

regards

Barely lasted a decade, by the time of Bahadur Shah was the "emperor" he was well past his prime age since he was imprisoned by his father Aurangazeb for treason, the old fool didn't die off until he's 90 spendings on lost causes effectively bankrupting his country. All he had left with while in the death bed was three hundred rupees.

Aurangzeb never "successfully" quelled any rebellions. He started losing territory year after year after the battle for Deccan. He spent a lot of money trying to please Marathas or fighting them sucking dry of his coffers and spending millions of armies to simply get control of the Marathas which he never did. When the Marathas crossed the Narmada defeated Dost Mohammed Khan his defeat effectively solidified the position of Marathas in Central India and Gujarat cutting the supply lines for Mughals. Mughals or Aurangzeb spend more than two decades trying to take control of Deccan Marathas kept fighting him till he had to return with effectively nothing, no money, no army because the aristocrats stopped funding him after his series of losses and barely escaping from Marathas. And finally died a year later.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

the king who succeeded him was able to manage the vast territorial extend of aurangzeb and successfully quelled all the rebellions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_I

regards

Not really. He left the Marathas to themselves who were actually rapidly expanding their territories. In his younger days, when he was posted in the Deccan, the Marathas instigated him to overthrow Aurangzeb. He couldn't actually do it and Aurangzeb repeatedly imprisoned him, but it certainly created divisions in the Mughal camp. He received continuous bribes from the Marathas to not attack Maratha territories (when he was appointed as governor in Deccan). You could even say that he favored the Marathas and had good ties with them.

In the battle for succession, he killed 2 of his brothers, Muhammad Kam Bakhsh (who took over the reigns of Bijapur after Aurangzeb's death but wanted to actually proclaim himself as Emperor from Delhi) and Muhammad Azam Shah (who lost his sons as well in the same battle), which too weakened the empire.

He couldn't capture Banda Singh Bahadur when he rebelled from the North and only could have a temporary alliance with the Rajputs of Amber, Jodhpur and Udaipur.

He converted to Shia Islam which could have alienated the majority Sunni Muslims under his rule.

 

[Jackdaws]

Pakistanis have been trying to claim the Mughals in vain since 1947. During Partition negotiations - Jinnah even asked for a "Mughal Corridor" - connecting West and East Pak and passing thru Agra.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

the claim is only made by hindus, there is no reason to think that aurangzeb caused the demise of the mughals.

He executed Dara Shikoh (who might have actually strengthened the Mughal empire with his wise tolerant policies), Murad Baksh (his brother), Sulaiman Shikoh (his nephew and Dara Shikoh's eldest son), Sambhaji Maharaj (who was Shivaji Maharaj's son) and the influential Sikh guru Guru Tegh Bahadur. The inhuman executions of Guru Tegh Bahadur and Sambhaji Maharaj especially alienated the Sikhs and Marathas respectively.

Historian Will Durant writes:
"Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, 'to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year (1679–80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixtythree at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers."

Also, the economy of the Mughal empire took a big hit when he came to the Deccan in 1681 with atleast 5 lakh of his camp followers.

 

[Robbie]

The bogus claim that aurangzeb lead to the demise of the mughal empire, exactly how?

regards

Others have answered the question already.

In short, his actions against Hindus ensured sparked rebellions across the country and, importantly, gave these rebellions moral and religious legitimacy to the many who were not onboard. He literally laid the foundations of the demise of the Mughals.

I find it ironic that Pakistanis talk about missing the Mughal empire and also tend to lionize Aurangzeb who was the single biggest factor in the empire's death.

Barely lasted a decade, by the time of Bahadur Shah was the "emperor" he was well past his prime age since he was imprisoned by his father Aurangazeb for treason, the old fool didn't die off until he's 90 spendings on lost causes effectively bankrupting his country. All he had left with while in the death bed was three hundred rupees.

Aurangzeb never "successfully" quelled any rebellions. He started losing territory year after year after the battle for Deccan. He spent a lot of money trying to please Marathas or fighting them sucking dry of his coffers and spending millions of armies to simply get control of the Marathas which he never did. When the Marathas crossed the Narmada defeated Dost Mohammed Khan his defeat effectively solidified the position of Marathas in Central India and Gujarat cutting the supply lines for Mughals. Mughals or Aurangzeb spend more than two decades trying to take control of Deccan Marathas kept fighting him till he had to return with effectively nothing, no money, no army because the aristocrats stopped funding him after his series of losses and barely escaping from Marathas. And finally died a year later.

Indeed, in a perverse way, India owes a debt of gratitude to Aurangzeb. If it had not been for him, the Mughal empire might have survived.

 

[W.11]

In short, his actions against Hindus

you are making this hindu vs muslim, even though he himself had a hindu mistress.

regards

He executed Dara Shikoh (who might have actually strengthened the Mughal empire with his wise tolerant policies), Murad Baksh (his brother), Sulaiman Shikoh (his nephew and Dara Shikoh's eldest son), Sambhaji Maharaj (who was Shivaji Maharaj's son) and the influential Sikh guru Guru Tegh Bahadur. The inhuman executions of Guru Tegh Bahadur and Sambhaji Maharaj especially alienated the Sikhs and Marathas respectively.

sikh militancy has been a cause for operation blue star mate, nothing new what aurangzeb did.

regards

Not really. He left the Marathas to themselves who were actually rapidly expanding their territories. In his younger days, when he was posted in the Deccan, the Marathas instigated him to overthrow Aurangzeb. He couldn't actually do it and Aurangzeb repeatedly imprisoned him, but it certainly created divisions in the Mughal camp. He received continuous bribes from the Marathas to not attack Maratha territories (when he was appointed as governor in Deccan). You could even say that he favored the Marathas and had good ties with them.

and sambhaji defected to the mughals, as i just read, this is simply called politics, the marathas refused to help yaswantrao holkar in his plans in driving out the british, sikhs helped the british quell rebellion in 1857 etc.
regards

 

[W.11]

Historian Will Durant writes:

will durrant was writing during age of colonialism, the same perod when there were white towns for the british and black towns for the indians.

regards

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

sikh militancy has been a cause for operation blue star mate, nothing new what aurangzeb did.

My point is that he alienated many of his people because of these executions. There's something called pragmatism which he lacked. You can't win everything through military might. If you want longevity, you need to make concessions here and there. The fact that he gave the option of convert to Islam or die to those people didn't help. I'm not saying he was the only one who was intolerant but that his policies made the people to rebel against the Mughals.

When India did Operation Blue Star, there was no religious bigotry involved. You can't compare the actions of the Indian State to the actions of a king.

and sambhaji defected to the mughals, as i just read, this is simply called politics, the marathas refused to help yaswantrao holkar in his plans in driving out the british, sikhs helped the british quell rebellion in 1857 etc.
regards

Yes, Sambhaji Maharaj defected to the Mughals due to his strained relations with Shivaji Maharaj but not for a very long time. He was even imprisoned by Shivaji Maharaj for a short while but he continued the fight against the Mughals once he became king. He also ensured safe passage for Aurangzeb's son Akbar to Persia and even sheltered him for a few years. On the other hand, Bahadar Shah/Prince Muazzam hardly did anything substantial against the Marathas and that's what I'm pointing to. Having said that, I know this was all politics of those times. There are many more examples of unlikely alliances and enmities apart from the ones that you have mentioned.

will durrant was writing during age of colonialism, the same perod when there were white towns for the british and black towns for the indians.

Should I start quoting other historians? It's not like it's only him that has a slightly tainted view against Aurangzeb.

 

[Asian.Century]

ULTIMATELY THE MUGHAL ARE ANCESTORS of the modern day Uzbeks and Turkmeinstan people.

They have no relation to most Pakistanis WHO are Punjabis in majority

AS THE VEDIO suggest Mughals CAME FROM CENTRAL ASIA

idiot the Punjabi Khan, Paktoon Khans all have their names from Central Asian. The fact that Sindi Muslims, Punjabi Muslims, Kashmir Muslims ruled over 1000 years of Muslim rule suggest, Indian Hindus still hurt by the fact of its rule including Mughal rule over Indian region.

 

[Robbie]

you are making this hindu vs muslim, even though he himself had a hindu mistress.

That's precisely the point - Aurangzeb made it Dharmics(Hindus, Sikhs) vs Muslim. Akbar had laid the foundations of a more inclusive empire and signed treaties with other kingdoms. Aurangzeb went the opposite way, jizya on non-Muslims, destroyed temple after temple, executed religious leaders of Dharmics, went against other kingdoms.

He started making sure everybody understood why they needed to oppose the Mughals. The idea that it was necessary to oppose the Mughals gained currency across India in a way that was unachievable before Aurangzeb. His actions directly laid the foundations for the destruction of the empire.

 

[W.11]

Should I start quoting other historians? It's not like it's only him that has a slightly tainted view against Aurangzeb.

the history of india was written to suit the british colonists, divide and rule indians based on religion, as the hindus had rallied behind bahadur shah zafar, the muslims became evil because its them they replaced in india and wanted to seek legitimacy by appealing the hindu people.

There's something called pragmatism which he lacked. You can't win everything through military might. If you want longevity, you need to make concessions here and there. The fact that he gave the option of convert to Islam or die to those people didn't help

you are writing all this because of your hindu bias and what hindu history tells you, are you really certain that marathas didn't kill muslims? forced conversions, didn't alienate the rajputs because of their plunders and mischiefs etc?, marathas were multiple times more ruthless than the mughals, secondly akber was more ruthless than aurangzeb but shown in good light because of his hindu appeasement and that he married a hindus

the famous stories regarding the torture chambers and ruthlessness of king ashoka is documented by buddhists and how he abandoned that only after many years of violence etc, how does vagbhatta remember the period of the guptas of the gupta empire, he doesnt use kind words towards them why?

 

[W.11]

That's precisely the point - Aurangzeb made it Dharmics(Hindus, Sikhs) vs Muslim

As if ythe marathas didn't make it hindu vs muslim as well, they even destroyed their own hindu temple, siringiri temple is an example of that, what about vijayanagar empire, who when invading the muslim kingdoms butchered muslims ruthlessly and destroyed their mosques.

regards

 

[jaibi]

I think if the world thinks that South Asians are educated then they need to introduce history into the conversation and see exactly how ignorant and repugnant we actually are. The Mughals and every other historical figure need to be studied in their own era. When you impose your own morals on them or your own ideologies on them you're being an idiot because this is called history for a reason after all. Please, let's try to see something beyond politics.