Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.
No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions.
During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?
Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that. If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant. During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities.
And about the fact the he jailed his own father, he did so because, some believe he had lost his mind loosing his beloved wife and was taking wrong decisions which could harm the empire, so he put him in a solitary confinement,not jailed.
Such intellectual dishonesty by historians(who have portrayed wrongly) is dangerous --- more explosive and more damaging than nuclear bombs. We have already seen its hideous effect with the destruction of Muslim historic sites (including the Babri Mosque) and recent riots in India that killed thousands of Muslims.
Let us not fall into the trap set by those who want to "neatly divide our world."
I am an Indian and I am a Muslim, And am proud to be so.Jai Hind
bad behaviour with non-muslims
Aurangzeb was the great-grandson of Akbar. Akbar was a generous king and treated all religions equally. But Aurangzeb was a true Muslim. He revived Akbar's policies and re-imposed taxes on non-Muslims. Aurangzeb was the most cruel Mughal King while Akbar was the greatest ruler of the Mughal dynasty.
No. King Aurangzeb is well-known in India for violating the rights of Non-Muslims and forcibly converting them. He started wars against the Sikhs and Hindus and destroyed major Hindu Temples such as the Kashi Vishwanath temple, Kesava Deo temple, and Somnath temple. He also executed the Ninth Sikh Guru. Because of the wars he started, Aurangzeb set in motion the collapse of the Mughal Empire.
Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was last of the Great Mughals. Aurangzeb was great in the sense he was "powerful". The Mughal empire reached its greatest extent under Aurangzeb.
Shivaji killed aurangzeb after reaching deccan and became stronger.
1707
Aurangzeb Alamgir,
bad behaviour with non-muslims
Aurangzeb was the great-grandson of Akbar. Akbar was a generous king and treated all religions equally. But Aurangzeb was a true Muslim. He revived Akbar's policies and re-imposed taxes on non-Muslims. Aurangzeb was the most cruel Mughal King while Akbar was the greatest ruler of the Mughal dynasty.
Just to be and remain King
Aurangzeb ordered the compilation of the Fatwa-i-Alamgiri.
No. King Aurangzeb is well-known in India for violating the rights of Non-Muslims and forcibly converting them. He started wars against the Sikhs and Hindus and destroyed major Hindu Temples such as the Kashi Vishwanath temple, Kesava Deo temple, and Somnath temple. He also executed the Ninth Sikh Guru. Because of the wars he started, Aurangzeb set in motion the collapse of the Mughal Empire.
Aurangzeb was not killed by anyone, He expired in a very good condition while he was praying, He was a very good human being but still people say bad about him for some political benefits
"Aurangzeb" means "Ornament of the Throne".
Aurangzeb died on March 3, 1707 at the age of 88.
Aurangzeb's full name was Muhi-ud-din Muhammad Aurangzeb (1658-1707). When he ascended the throne in 1658, he took the title of Alamgir, which means World Conqueror. But he is known to us by his real name Aurangzeb.
Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was last of the Great Mughals. Aurangzeb was great in the sense he was "powerful". The Mughal empire reached its greatest extent under Aurangzeb.