Rare is the book that causes a
sea-change in opinion or perspective; this book – Aurangzeb: The Man and the
Myth, by Audrey Truschke, is one in that category. A book that quite
successfully challenges, at least in my case, a strongly held opinion, and
overturns it through sheer dint of a strong, logical, data-and-fact backed
series of arguments that is also intuitively accurate when put into the larger
picture of the era under question. The inconsistencies that are contained in
the modern impression of the man Aurangzeb, that should have been apparent to
me, came to the fore in the hitherto-understood picture of the man Aurangzeb.
THE BOOK
I would rather you read this for
yourself; no description in one or two paragraphs can do justice to this masterpiece
of a historical paper. In a nutshell, this is a factual, no-holds-barred
examination of Aurangzeb, the historical figure. His life has been examined in
a scholarly paper based on hard period evidence, and the popular image of the
man has been successfully taken on. What emerges is a far more logical, nuanced
and realistic historical figure. All the controversies have been examined –
some have been proven right, while bringing to light other aspects which were
not known to us.
We think of Aurangzeb as a religious zealot,
anti-Hindu, who oppressed the Hindus in
his kingdom; we – at least I did – assume that it was this that lead to the
eventual demise of the Mughal empire. I thought of him as a temple-destroyer,
and even a mass-killer, a cruel leader. Ms Truschke has looked at all of these
aspects and more, bringing to light his other traits, his protection of Hindu
temples as well as the sporadic destruction of the same; his penchant for
morals and for justice, and the import of his policies and his politics on the
Empire and its future is all brought to the fore here.
THE ANALYSIS
The best part I liked was the
acceptance of the negative traits, all too well known to us. This work does not
try to whitewash {or, given my brown
skin, perhaps brownwash is a better term} Aurangzeb. Far from it; it
categorically accepts his negative aspects, while filling in unknown details of
the emperor. It establishes the motives for his negativity, as well as the
scale of the same, putting the things in the proper perspective. Best of all,
it steers clear of modern norms of judgement, morality, legality, society etc,
and takes a deeper perspective.
It was nice to read a historian
accepting what has been my consistent stance in the past 9 years of reviewing history
books : that history should be not judged by modern standards. One has to
understand the era of which we are talking about, its society, its politics,
its norms. And one has to steer clear from the temptation of taking a judgemental
stance basis a modern thought process;
any judgements that are made in your mind should ideally avoided, or at best made from a mindset that lies in
the era which you are judging.
Question
1
to the Author: This is the first negative of the book; there is a strong felt
need for historians like Ms Audrey to elaborate this concept and explain why we
should not use modern yardsticks to
judge history, and what are the pitfalls of the same. The book missed a golden
chance for pitching this point in a much stronger manner to the audience. Given that it challenges a strongly held belief
in at least a segment of the people, there was a strong need for this addition,
which would have made the arguments it contains much stronger.
The Aurangzeb that emerges from this
book is far more realistic, while most certainly not likeable. The book does
not make the contention that he was a well liked leader or anything like that;
it admits his weaknesses, in fact highlights them. But it adds the positives he
had as well; this fleshes out the character Aurangzeb, makes him seem real to
us. That is logical : any person would have positives. It also highlights his
politics, which was at the centre of most of his actions rather than religion,
if not all. Now this should have been
apparent to an amateur historian like me; he was an Emperor, and such a man
would value politics – he did rule for 49.5 years. Without adequate focus on
politics, that would have been impossible to achieve.
The book also gives a deep insight
into Mughal India as it existed in the 1600s, and we begin to understand why
did we fall so rapidly politically in the 1600s and 1700s. The slow cancerous
degeneration of the hold of the center over its vassal states due to the
policies – and personal traits of – the ruler become apparent; as is the
deleterious impact of relentless expansionism, loose control and physical absence
of the Emperor from Delhi…. {Aurangzeb spent the last 2-3 decades of his life
away from Delhi}. These policies and traits had nothing to do with Religion,
for the most part.
It gives a fascinating insight into
Aurangzeb’s religious philosophy, piety – while making it clear that in a
matter of Religion Vs Politics, he always chose Politics. His penchant for
justice, positive engagements with Hindus {Started around the 1560s by Akbar},
protection of temples etc has been thoroughly examined. The destruction of
temples and its sporadic political nature has also been well covered. His steps
were not limited to Hindus, which comes as a surprise. It underlines how Hindu
participation was the highest under Aurangzeb, which was a stunner.
On the religious aspects of this
debate, I would much rather you looked it up for yourself; suffice it t state
that there is enough material in the book that forces a rethink, at least in my
case. Both sides of the debate have been fairly examined in a scholarly
fashion; I certainly could not detect any agenda. And I am a person who is on
record stating a preference for Indian Books – Fiction or Non-Fiction; most of
the {nearly all} books to feature on my blog in History section are Indian in
origin, or by Indian origin people. Question
2 : Interestingly, this book also challenges my notion – that history is
best understood by insiders, that is people living in the culture / nation on
which the history book is based on. That
said, I do still believe a co-author from India or Indian Origins would have
had a positive impact in terms of the acceptability of the content, as its
presentation would have been far more nuanced and in keeping with Indian Audience
Tastes and impressions. I could be wrong on this point, though.
I have stated two questions of the
author above : let me conclude this review with a third Question. Annotations and Evidence: The book
would have had a much stronger impact had a proper notation been
adopted, with footnotes on each page for each evidence –based point being made,
linked to detailed descriptions in End-Notes as has been done in other works. In
simple words, the author should have given footnotes with summary of proofs and
sources, with a detailed bibliography at the end. As of now there is only a detailed bibliography,
which is not indexed to specific pages and paragraphs on the main content.
There is only a bold lettering giving main point; making it slightly hard for
the reader.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this is an excellent
summary analysis of the Emperor Aurangzeb. The book sets out with an objective
of telling Myth from Fact about Aurangzeb; in this, it succeeds admirably.
Rated 5 stars, and a highly recommended read. But, I have another, a fourth question : Ms Trushcke
missed a golden opportunity of going deeper into this fascinating Emperor; this
book has given a tantalizing glimpse of how his impact on Central Politics in
the India of the 1600s and the 1700s was much greater than we the people
believe it to be; perhaps, his weaknesses contributed to bringing the colonial
rape of our lovely land, as the Empire weakened in the last 2 decades of his
rule, leaving us open to Invasion.
Comments
Post a Comment