How Hindutva Reignited the Aurangzeb Myth

Having successfully constructed the Ram Mandir on the site of the Babri Masjid, the Hindutva forces have now shifted their focus from Babur to Aurangzeb Alamgir, the sixth and longest-reigning Mughal emperor of one of the largest and most powerful empires in history. Colonial narratives, designed to sow discord between Hindus and Muslims, often depicted Aurangzeb as a brutal, fanatical and anti-Hindu ruler. These skewed portrayals have become convenient tools for the Hindutva agenda.

The historical assessment of Aurangzeb is far more nuanced. After all, he was a ruler of the feudal era, operating within the norms and ethos of his time. In contrast, the Hindutva forces are replicating such divisive and oppressive tendencies in a modern democratic context, undermining the constitutional boundaries established in good faith by the sovereign people of India.

Myth as History

The Hindutva forces have long been adept at peddling myths as history to advance their ideological agenda. They have already succeeded in renaming Aurangabad, a city historically named after Aurangzeb, to Sambhaji Nagar. Historically, Aurangabad served as an important administrative and cultural hub during Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 reign, its identity deeply intertwined with Mughal-era history and architecture. The renaming is an attempt to erase that legacy and impose a narrative that aligns with Hindutva ideology. Interestingly, there is no documented evidence to suggest any direct connection between Chhatrapati Sambhaji, Shivaji라이브 바카라 son, and Aurangabad. The renaming appears to be more about demonising Aurangzeb and glorifying Maratha icons than about any substantial historical connection.

The anti-Aurangzeb rhetoric has gained further traction with the recent release of the Bollywood film Chhaava, which dramatises the conflicts between the Maratha and the Mughal forces, portraying Aurangzeb as a ruthless and oppressive ruler. This is part of a broader trend where Bollywood has contributed to the propagation of Hindutva narratives through films like The Kerala Story, The Kashmir Files, Swatantrya Veer Savarkar, Emergency and Article 370. Many of these films have been explicitly promoted by top Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders, lending legitimacy to their narratives.

Chhaava has played a pivotal role in stoking communal tensions, with calls for the demolition of Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 modest tomb in Khuldabad, near Aurangabad. This has culminated in communal clashes in Nagpur, a city historically not associated with Hindu-Muslim conflicts. The escalation of these tensions in Maharashtra is no coincidence; the orchestration of such emotional and divisive issues serves a clear political agenda. It has also been a deliberate stratagem to divert public attention from the pressing issues of their livelihood by intoxicating them with imagined past glory using concocted history.

One-dimensional Caricature

Aurangzeb is often criticised for his departure from the liberal policies of his predecessors. His ascent to power, marked by the execution of his brothers and the imprisonment of his father, Shah Jahan, is frequently cited as evidence of his ruthlessness. Such actions, however, were common among ruling dynasties of the era, where the absence of clear succession laws often led to fratricidal conflicts.

The Ottoman empire, for instance, institutionalised fratricide to ensure stability, with Sultan Mehmed II legalising it for the State라이브 바카라 benefit. Our own Chhatrapati Sambhaji, when faced internal strife after Shivaji라이브 바카라 death in 1680, had imprisoned his stepmother Soyarabai and secured the throne. Similar power struggles can be commonly encountered among Rajput clans, the Vijayanagara empire, the Malla dynasty of Nepal and the Nayaka kingdoms of South India.

Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 actions simply reflected the harsh realities of monarchical politics rather than being unique to him or his faith.

Another commonly raised criticism is about Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 reimposition of the jizya tax on non-Muslims in 1679. The jizya, rooted in Islamic law, was a levy on non-Muslims (dhimmis) in exchange for protection and exemption from military service. It was levied only on the able-bodied non-Muslim youth who did not volunteer for military service. The main reason behind it was financial, as the Mughal empire during Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 rule faced significant economic strain from prolonged military campaigns, declining agricultural productivity and disruptions in trade. The tax levied on the wider base of population of non-Muslims provided a much-needed boost to State revenues.

Politically, the jizya served to consolidate Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 authority amid challenges, including revolts by the Rajputs, the rise of the Marathas under Shivaji, dissent within the nobility and external threats from the Safavids and Central Asia. By aligning himself with orthodox Sunni Muslim factions, Aurangzeb sought to reinforce his legitimacy and maintain support among the conservative elements of his empire.

However, the policy did alienate non-Muslims, especially Hindus and Jains, who were the primary taxpayers. It also strained relations with erstwhile allies like the Rajputs. This exacerbated communal tensions and contributed to growing discontent, leaving a legacy of division that his successors struggled to manage.

A Nuanced Version

Contrary to his image as anti-Hindu, Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 policies reflected a nuanced governance style. He demonstrated administrative pragmatism by integrating Hindus into his administration. Historian Parvati Sharma wrote that while Emperor Akbar had 14 Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb had 148. The proportion of Hindu nobles and Mansabdars rose from 24.5 per cent under Shah Jahan to over 30 per cent during Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 rule, highlighting a merit-based approach over religious exclusivity. Two Hindus—Raja Jaswant Singh of Marwar and Raja Jai Singh of Amer—held the highest positions in the State treasury. Many other Hindus occupied high administrative positions. Significantly, Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 State policies were formulated mainly by Hindus. It simply reflected the Mughal policy of maintaining diverse nobility composed of Central Asians, Iranians, Afghans, Indian Muslims and Rajputs. This diversity ensured that no single group dominated power and underscored the pragmatic nature of Mughal governance.

His policies toward Hindu festivals and temples likewise were shaped by a combination of religious beliefs, administrative priorities and political challenges. Much publicised temple demolitions, such as those of Kashi Vishwanath and Krishna Janmabhoomi, were politically and symbolically motivated, often targeting centres of power associated with rivals or rebellions. Temple destructions in the North targeted political rivals, while patronage in the South aimed to strengthen alliances and control local economies.

The communal insinuation is easily contradicted by extant documents that show that he donated huge estates for the upkeep of temples in Benaras, Kashmir and elsewhere. Huge grants were sanctioned to temples in the Deccan to secure alliances and consolidate Mughal authority in newly acquired territories. These decisions were guided more by statecraft than an overarching communal agenda.

Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 policies thus reflected a blend of political pragmatism, economic strategy and religious considerations. Reducing him to a one-dimensional figure distorts history and risks further societal division.

Shivaji vs. Aurangzeb

The conflict between Aurangzeb and Shivaji Maharaj was primarily political, centred on territorial control and sovereignty, rather than religious or communal differences. Both leaders sought to expand their domains, leading to inevitable clashes.

Aurangzeb aimed to consolidate and extend the Mughal empire라이브 바카라 influence across India. His campaigns against regional powers, including the Marathas, were driven by ambitions of political dominance. Many of them were headed by Hindu generals, to the extent that it created resentment among Muslim nobles. Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 explanation was in terms of Sharia law, which stipulated that the right person should be placed in the right position in public administration. It reflected a governance model that prioritised ability over religious identity.

Shivaji Maharaj, likewise, was focused on establishing an independent Maratha kingdom and resisting external domination. His army and administration were also inclusive, with several Muslims holding key positions: Siddi Hilalas, a trusted general; Daulat Khan, who served as one of his commanders-in-chief; Ibrahim Khan, who held a prominent military position, Kazi Haider, one of his 13 loyal Muslim generals; Siddi Ibrahim, who played a crucial role in his military campaigns; Siddi Wahwah, another Muslim general; Noorkhan Beg, Sultan Khan, ​Dawood Khan and Shama Khan, who contributed notably to Shivaji라이브 바카라 military efforts; Hussain Khan Miyani, who was part of the group of trusted Muslim generals; Siddi Mistri, who served as commander-in-chief alongside Daulat Khan; and Madari Mehetar, who was included in the list of faithful generals.​ Thus, Shivaji also was not driven by religious motives.

The interactions between Aurangzeb and Shivaji further illustrate the political nature of their rivalry. For instance, the Treaty of Purandar (1665) saw Shivaji cede forts and accept a position as a Mughal vassal, highlighting the pragmatic negotiations between the two.

Ultimately, their conflict was driven by competing political ambitions and territorial disputes, not religious animosities. Both leaders demonstrated inclusivity within their administrations, showcasing the pragmatic realities of governance in their respective eras.

Playing Aurangzeb

Like any other king, Aurangzeb was neither a paragon of virtue nor a villain. Like any other king, he too internalised responsibility towards his praja (subjects). Notwithstanding, the truth about Aurangzeb, he has been dead for over 300 years. The obsessive vilification campaign against him paradoxically mirrors the caricatured image of Aurangzeb, as constructed by those in power today.

India is grappling with serious challenges, including rising unemployment; declining investments (Foreign Direct Investment has recorded a 34 per cent drop in the first half of the fiscal year 2024-25); falling consumption (reflected in the persistent decline of the HSBC India Composite Purchasing Managers’ Index); widening inequalities; growing agricultural distress; a freefalling rupee; and mounting inflationary pressures. Adding to these woes are export challenges exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, particularly due to the Russia-Ukraine war, which has disrupted global supply chains, alongside looming threats from US trade policies that risk destabilising India라이브 바카라 economy further. Instead of addressing these pressing issues and mobilising the nation라이브 바카라 collective energy, our leaders are preoccupied with matters such as Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 tomb and digging under mosques to search for temples.

If at all, Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 reign offers a historical lesson on the perils of intertwining religion with politics. His attempts to enforce religious orthodoxy alienated crucial allies, deepened social divisions and sparked widespread resistance, ultimately weakening the Mughal empire and hastening its decline.

Will the ghost of Aurangzeb wake our politicians to their Raj Dharma to focus on the problems the country is facing?

(Views expressed are personal)

Anand Teltumbde is an indian scholar, writer and human rights activist.

This article is part of 바카라라이브 바카라 April 21, 2025 issue 'Adolescence' which looks at the forces shaping teenage boys today—online misogyny, incel forums, bullying, and the chaos of the manosphere. It appeared in print as 'The Man And The Myth'