Aurangzeb, The Man and the Myth, Audrey Truschke, Book Review-Part 3

 (continued from Part 2)

 3. A third set of problems - failure of contextualization

A significant portion of Ms. Truschke's contextualization does not serve to absolve Aurangzeb of religious intolerance unless one is fundamentally biased against Hindus and Hinduism. The arguments very much resemble an often-heard mishmash of Pakistan nationalist cognitive dissonance whereby modern 'liberal social justice' principles are sought to be applied to contextualize Muslim religious aggression towards 'unbelievers' and 'idol-worshippers'. This results in convoluted arguments whose tendency is that all Muslim acts are/were justified since Hindus being fundamentally errant, need/needed to be brought to justice. The logic goes 'give us the Muslim's act and we will find the errancy of the Hindu that caused it'.

For example, she writes "In reality, Aurangzeb pursued no overarching agenda vis-a-vis Hindus within his state. 'Hindus' of the day often did not even label themselves as such and rather prioritized a medley of regional, sectarian, and caste identities(for example, Rajput, Maratha, Brahmin, Vaishnava)." (p 17)

Even if Hindus in his time did not call themselves Hindus, Aurangzeb had no problems of definition. He termed them collectively, variously as 'idol-worshippers', 'infidels' and 'unbelievers'.  In Aurangzeb's royal orders ordering demolishing of Hindu temples, dismissal of Hindu civil servants, exaction of discriminatory octroi rates, collection of jizya, ending Hindu religious practice and learning in Thatta, Multan and Benares, not just Aurangzeb but also members of his vast bureaucracy tasked with implementing his royal orders, all, knew exactly who were Hindus.
 
It is difficult to dispute, given the considerable historical record of his reign, that Aurangzeb's overaraching agenda was to rule successfully as a devout Sunni Mughal ruler. He had an aversion for religious persuasions other than his own. His dealings with Hindus have to be seen in that context.  Sometimes he was pragmatic and sometimes he was bigoted.

From "Ruqaʿāt-i ʿĀlamgīrī" (CLXI), Aurangzeb wrote to Zulfiqar Khan Nasrat Jung
 "Why should a fertile land be given to an ungrateful ‘káfir-i-harabi’?* Why should we be negligent in carrying out works which it is impossible to accomplish without any evident objection? Have we not read about the reward of the crusade (against the infidels) in the ‘Sahihain’*? Have we not got power of conquering kingdoms and of imprisoning rebels?" (*infidel who is deserved by Mohammedans to be fought with and ruined) (https://persian.packhum.org)

Contexualization of his dealings with Rajputs, taking the common sense path, given the facts instead of the convoluted reasoning path:

About his dealings with Rajputs, maybe we could consider a realistic contextualization instead of the self-serving one of Ms. Truschke. Namely, that Aurangzeb and his Rajput allies needed to maintain the historic alliances they had with each other to maintain power over their respective realms.  Given these constraints, Aurangzeb's temple breaking and laws targeting Hindus were bitter pills Rajputs were forced to swallow, while the Rajputs' Hindu faith was a bitter pill Aurangzeb had to swallow. 

The Rajputs' willingness to ally with Aurangzeb was not a definitive indication of his religious tolerance nor was Aurangzeb's willingness to ally with the Rajputs a definitive indication of his religious tolerance. Their willingness to ally with each other was definitive of their pragmatism to maintain their respective levels of sovereignty.

The most offensive(to me) and ahistorical contextualization was as follows
(page 111)

"..religious reasons may have been in play. .. According to Saqi Mustaid Khan, a historian who wrote after Aurangzeb's death,in 1669 the king learned that 'in Thatta, Multan and especially in Benares, deviant Brahmins were teaching false books at their established schools. Curious seekers--Hindu and Muslim alike--travelled great distances to gain depraved knowledge from them.."  

Though it is her own translation, she doesn't cite the entire quote on this episode.

A translation of the same Saqi Mustaid Khan passage in 'Ma-ásir-i 'Álamgírí' published by H Eliot states-
"it reached the ear of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the provinces of Thatta, Multán, and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Bráhmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that students and learners, Musulmáns as well as Hindús, went there, even from long distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The “Director of the Faith” consequently issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship."

Jadunath Sarkar's translation of the same passage in Maasir i Alamgiri is:
"The Lord Cherisher of the Faith learnt that in the provinces of Tatta, Multan and especially at Benares, the Brahman misbelievers used to teach their false books in their established schools, and that admirers and students both Hindu and Muslim, used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire this vile learning. His Majesty, eager to establish Islam, issued orders to the governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and with the utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers"

In other words, in 1669, Aurangzeb issued orders to all provinces to demolish religious schools and temples of Hindus and to put down the teaching  and public practice of the religion of Hindus. Yet Audrey Truschke omits mentioning this consequential fact.

Her 'contextualization' follows: 

"Generations of Mughal kings had attempted to curb certain religious behaviours, especially of errant Brahmins who, in Mughal eyes, took advantage of the less sophisticated. For example, Akbar took Brahmins to task for misrepresenting Hindu texts to lower castes and hoped that translating Sanskrit texts into Persian would prompt these (in his opinion) arrogant leaders to reform their ways. Aurangzeb similarly evinced concern with elite Brahmins deceiving common Hindus about their own religion and was perhaps especially alarmed that Muslims were falling prey to charlatans. Brahmins may even have profited financially from such ventures.The French traveller Jean de Thevenot opined that Brahmins were numerous in Benares and 'find their Profit' in lavish festivals that drew large crowds. In such cases Mughal royal obligations demanded strong intervention to prevent their subjects from being hoodwinked. For most temples in Benares and elsewhere, Aurangzeb ordered Mughal officials to investigate alleged dubious practices. But in the case of certain institutions, including the Vishvanatha and Keshava Deva Temples, he deemed demolition appropriate."

Audrey Truschke  maintains that the Maasir i Alamgiri, the source of this quote, "must be cited with extreme caution" with regard to the number of temples demolished by Aurangzeb. She also writes it "presented Aurangzeb's reign through the lens of Islamic conquest, sometimes changing facts to suit the author's tastes". (p 108)

But apparently the author of Maasir i Alamgiri should definitely be trusted to provide factual basis of her conclusions above. Namely, that Brahmins were being 'deviant' in their established schools in three major Hindu religious centers, and were teaching 'depraved' knowledge.  She concludes also without basis that they were hoodwinking common Hindus and Muslims in doing so. Further, she implies that Brahmins had no legitimate right to find financial support or profit in their endeavors, even in the religious city of Benares where Hindus congregate to carry out their religious observances and duties. In conclusion, it was not religious bigotry but a honorable  royal obligation of Aurangzeb towards his kingdom and Hindus to put an end to Brahmins' depraved teaching and errant 'religious behavior'.
(Brahmins are bad, as every American student of Hinduism is probably taught).

Her explanation doesn't work because she leaves out the meat of the paragraph- that Aurangzeb issued orders to all provinces to demolish religious schools and temples of Hindus and to put down the teaching and public practice of the religion of Hindus all over the realm.

Her omission frees her from the need to "contextualize" the consequential fact that in 1669, Aurangzeb issued orders to demolish religious schools and temples of Hindus in all provinces because of reports that Brahmins were spreading their religious teachings out of their established schools in Thatta, Multan and Benares. Any casual reader would wonder why her omission if it was after all Aurangzeb's noble royal obligation as she writes.
 
My flight of fancy is that she would argue that while the beginning of the paragraph absolutely positively certifies the deviancy and crookedness of Brahmins and Aurangzeb's noble aims with respect to Hindus and keeping Hinduism clean,  the end of the paragraph implying he ordered everything demolished should be "cited with extreme caution".  Why? No reason except if you don't, she might say you are a Hindutva bigot.

Her explanation doesn't work, also given another context. After imposition of jizya, it was recorded that many of the ulama involved in jizya collection exploited the system, harassed the Hindus and amassed wealth for themselves. "However, the clerical elements took advantage of the situation for large scale exactions and oppressions, and the amassing of private fortunes. The Imperial news-reporter wrote from Mertah that the qazi there had extorted large sums from the Hindus by way of jizyah. Manucci goes further and asserts that the amins of jizyah keep back half or even three-fourths of the proceeds for themselves. (Satish Chandra, reference in Part 2).

Did Aurangzeb as the celebrated dispenser of justice and order, for whom the ideals of akhlaq and adab were important, feel a royal obligation to stem the oppression by and financial greed of the qazis? We are left hanging about whether he did.

The most plausible reason for Aurangzeb's actions in this instance was that in common with his contemporaries, he saw Hindu philosophical teachings and the Hindu practice of idol worship as deviancy and something undesirable (he beheaded his brother Dara Shikoh on pretext of the sin of heresy for dabbling in Hindu philosophical teachings).  That, as a devout Muslim,  for religious reasons, Aurangzeb wanted to shut down Hindu religious practice, teaching and worship which were observed as being practiced with vigor by large numbers of people. If such acts brought him political benefits, then that was also consistent with his religious beliefs.

Again, no medieval or premodern iconoclast has ever claimed the desire to reform Hinduism. Only if you are fundamentally anti-Hindu, would you in the modern era argue that an iconoclast devout Sunni Muslim Emperor in preventing Brahmins from teaching Hinduism  in established schools intended noble-minded Hindu religious reform. Ms. Truschke would never have used this argument had these been Christian or Jewish places of religious teaching.

In summary, despite drawing from many sources and giving the reader a more than one dimensional view of Aurangzeb, Audrey Truschke fails to make her case that Aurangzeb never acted with religious bigotry towards his Hindu subjects. She leaves out too much that is hard to contextualize away. Many portions of her contextualization do not absolve Aurangzeb through incomplete facts or plain bad argument.

Aurangzeb's religious tolerance was often pragmatic and political. His religious intolerance was religious and often political (as his religion allowed).  His politics of religious intolerance only served to weaken his empire as even a Mughal Emperor could not afford to have a vast number of unhappy subjects. 

Aurangzeb was a man of his time but modern day justifications of his acts of religious persecution and discrimination such as presented in this book, dangerously create permission for similar acts (by Muslims or Hindus) in the modern day.  Historians need to call out Muslim bigotry in the past as vigorously as they call out Hindu bigotry in the present.

(end)

Part 1

Part 2

Aurangzeb, The Man and the Myth, Audrey Truschke, Book Review-Part 2

(continued from Part 1)

2. The problem of citing selective facts.

Audrey Truschke, in a number of instances, omits mentioning facts salient to her narration. This list is not exhaustive.

For instance, she mentions Aurangzeb's imposition of jizya tax on nonMuslims in 1679 ('perhaps in part to employ the ulama in its collection'  p 88).

Given that she touts that in Aurangzeb's vision of justice, 'divisive concepts such as... jizya...were less important than the ideals of akhlaq and adab (political conduct and ethical conduct, respectively)'(p. 12), she omits mentioning the economic burden that the jizya put on the populace. She also doesn't mention that his royal order specified that the manner of its collection was required to humiliate the giver of jizya. She does not mention that Aurangzeb had, from since 13 years before, also imposed a discriminatory 5% excise tax on Hindus.

More information on the issue of jizya and Aurangzeb's discriminatory taxation is presented below for a reader to judge its relevance to the subject:

Soon after beginning his reign, he abolished all inland transport (octroi) taxes said to amount to ten percent of revenues. (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_15.html)

In the eighth year of his reign (1666), the Mirat i Ahmadi reports an imposition of, "an octroi of one fortieth [2.5%] from a Muslim and  two-fortieth [5%] from a Hindu according to the price of the article".

In the tenth year of his reign(1668)(Mirat i Ahmadi) he issued a royal order to the effect that "the one fortieth tax imposed on goods of merchandise of the Muslims and collected by the Government is abandoned and abolished.. A duty of two fortieth should continued to be exacted from goods of merchandise of Hindus."

In the sixteenth year of his reign(1674) Mirat i Ahmadi, reports "a royal order is issued after receipt of which jagirdars of the mahals of the Subah of Gujarat should recover taxes from Hindus in the manner they used to do in the twentieth year of His Late Majesty Shah Jahan. ...The Muslims are exempted from those taxes. ... Annual, seasonal, monthly, weekly, daily, wintery on festival day, turban counting, man counting, house counting, taxes collected from the Hindus."

In the twenty first year of his reign(1679) he imposed jizya on nonMuslim men (Christians, Parsis, Hindus) in three 'slabs' of rates depending on the wealth of the nonMuslim:
Rich person defined as >10000 dirhams wealth: 48 dirhams per year (works out to <= 0.48%)
Middle Class person defined as 200-10000 dirhams wealth: 24 dirhams per year (works out to 0.48%-12%)
Poor person defined as 0-200 dirhams wealth: 12 dirhams (after allowing for sustenance of a man and his wife), (works out to 6%-(100%-subsistance) )

While officers had discretion to remit jizya due to indigence or crop failure for instance (and Aurangzeb did remit jizya for some periods in famine stricken regions), it was also a cause of harassment by collection officials. The rate was particularly harsh on the poor. Satish Chandra quotes 40 dirham as the yearly savings of a poor person. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3596130 Chandra, Satish. “Jizyah and the State in India during the 17th Century.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 12, no. 3, 1969, pp. 322–340.)

"Nearly five lacs of rupees were collected annually in the department of jizya from the zimmis of the Subah of Gujarat." (Mirat i Ahmadi)

Aurangzeb's attitude to jizya was strict. He completely disregarded a protest by Hindu subjects in Delhi in which masses of people blocked his way to the mosque and had to be cleared with the trampling of elephants. One another instance:

" The Emperor learnt from the letter of Firuz Jang Khan, who was appointed to take care of the Base Camp (bungah) at Islampuri and to guard the road from Burhanpur to the place of the Emperor's stay,—“...It is necessary to increase the population of the grain-market of the place, and thereby ensure the copious arrival of provision at the imperial camp. But this [peopling of the place] cannot be effected without abolishing the poll-tox (jaziya) on the Hindu residents of the place. Please order that Inayetullah Khan may send a letter patent (sanad) of exemption [from the jaziya].”

The Emperor wrote, “I do not accept helpers from among the infidels. Your wish for the colonising of the grain-market at the tomb, and your upsetting the command contained in the text of the holy Quran concern­ing jaziya,—which is ‘[Chastise them till they pay jaziya from the hand because] they are humbled’, by substituting for it the words ‘they deserve to be excused’,—are a thousand stages remote from the perfect wisdom and obedience to the august Religious Law which are possessed by this trusted servant aware of my sentiments. Evidently, a group of your companions, —the habit of which party, more despicable than sweepers, is to create suspicion in the hearts of men, —have made you blind and go astray, and have, through immature greed, given to this worthless idea a place in your heart which is receptive of allurements. How can this old man, stricken in years and experienced in affairs [i.e., Aurangzib], be deceived? (Verse)" (Ahkam-i-Alamgiri (Anecdotes of Aurangzib), Jadunath Sarkar)

On the manner of collection of jizya, his royal order specified:
"Fourthly, the collector of jizya should collect it from a zimmi in this manner. A zimmi should himself come to pay it. He should come on foot.The collector should sit while the zimmi should stand. The collector should place his hand over the hand of the zimmi saying "I take jizya, oh zimmi" It should not be accepted when sent indirectly through his deputy. The collector should not levy it without seeing the man." (Mirat i Ahmadi)

In the same year (1679) he reimposed the one fortieth rate of taxes(zakat) on Muslims "'As it is the royal intention and regal desire that the Muslims may be distinguished with obligation and kindness from vicious unbelievers, a royal order was issued before this in respect of forgiveness of zakat on their wealth out of kindness and regard to them. His Majesty has now heard that many Muslims mix up their own wealth with that of the unbelievers for the sake of worldly trash for non-payment of zakat. They exempt themselves from payment of zakat on ground that it does not belong to them. Great cheating occurs and loss occurs to the Bait ul-Mal on which the Muslims have claims... administrators.. and managers.. should collect zakat from the Muslims at the rate of one in forty.."  (Mirat i Ahmadi)

The discriminatory 5% excise tax on Hindus levied from the eighth year of his reign was levied over and above the jizya.

In another example of citing of selective facts, Audrey Truschke mentions that the Hindu share in Mughal administration at the elite level rose from 1679-1707.  She omits mentioning that in previous years, Aurangzeb issued orders of wholesale dismissals of Hindus.

For example, in 1667, he ordered dismissal of Hindu officials in (probably) the police and clerks:
"Hindu Chowkinavis and Amins of the Haft-chowkis to be replaced by the Musalmans. Siyaha Akhbarat Darbar Mu'alla, Julus (R. Yr.) 10, Zilhijja 16/30 May 1667
“Orders were issued by the Sublime Court to dismiss the Hindu Chowkinavis and to appoint in their place Musalmans, and, likewise, a way should be found for replacing the Amins of the Haft-chowkis by the Musalmans.” (http://www.aurangzeb.info/)

In 1671, he ordered provincial viceroys to dismiss all lower level Hindu clerks and accountants and to give employment to those who had converted to Islam. (Maasir i Alamgiri)

If he reinstated Hindus into the bureacracy in later years, there was a reason mentioned in Siyar al-Mutaʾaḫirīn perhaps quoting an earlier historian:
"Never­theless, the Emperor with all his prejudices came to open his eyes at last. Finding that the ecclesiastics troubled and overset the whole administration, and that nothing would go forwards unless he employed the Gentoos[Hindus] again in his service, a set of men who, either as powerful Princes, or as keeping the books and registers of the Revenue, were the axle-trees of the wheels of Government, he contrived to take his revenge of that loyal submissive people, by loading them with new impositions, exact­ing double duties from those of that description, and submitting them to a poll-tax—innovations which after all gave him a deal of trouble, and produced nothing but repentance. For such ordinances require a strong hand, and a great exactitude, so as to subdue equally the highest and lowest of mankind; and when they affect only the impotent, without having any energy over the headstrong and refractory, they cease to be laws and they dishonour all Government."
[The editor/translator of Sirat i Mukhtheterin comments on its author, Ghulam Husain Tabatabai:
"This unexpected sortie upon Aoreng-zib should not surprise the reader. The author was a Shyah and a bigoted fanatical one. The Emperor was a zealous Sunni, and moreover one who had put an end to two Shyah kingdoms, and to two Shyah Dynasties."]
 

In mentioning Aurangzeb's curbs on Hindu worship, Diwali and Holi, Ms. Truschke misses some of the essence of the same royal order. Along with 'public safety', there was also the element of Aurangzeb ordering curbs on Hindu religious practices in temples and public places.

From order issued in the eighth year of his reign(1666)
"Twenty, temples were demolished in Ahmedabad and other paraganas before the Royal Ascension, they are repaired and idol worship continues. Action should be taken on what has been stated in the body of the Farman ["Demolished temples which have been repaired should be pulled down. It should be regarded urgent and emphatic"].Twenty One, Hindus have given false currency to false customs in cities and paraganah, they light lamps on the night of Diwali and use obscene language during Holidays. They light Holy in every chakla and bazar. They throw into Holi fire firewood of any one they get hold of either with force or with theft. They should arrange that diwali lamps are not lighted in bazars and that firewood of anyone should not be stolen or seized with force and thrown into fire of Holi. They should not use obscene language." (Mirat i Ahmadi)

On the number of temples destroyed by order of Aurangzeb, the exact number is indeed unknowable. Compiling a more complete list than Ms. Truschke writes of is possible but is an exercise for another day.

She writes (p 107) "Other scholars have pointed out additional temple demolitions not counted by Eaton, such as two orders to destroy the Somanatha Temple in 1659 and 1706 (the existence of a second order suggests that the first was never carried out)."

The following might or might not be the same order. Mirat i Ahmadi reports, in Hijri 1114(1702) or the forty forth year of his reign (the first demolition order was issued during the first year of his reign): 

"It was reported to his Majesty that the Marathas have designs to roam about near Baglana, and Surat. A royal order was issued to the Prince that preparation of the event should be made before its occurance.... Again it was ordered that the temple of Somnath situated in Saurath Sarkar in the middle of the sea was pulled down in the beginning of the year of Ascension and idol-worship was discontinued. Now it is not known as to in what condition it is. If God's creatures still engage themselves in worship of idols, the temple should again be so pulled down that there may not remain any vestige of the building and they should be expelled from the place.."

While discussing the demolition of some temples,  she omits mentioning what was done to the idols in those cases.

Regarding the idols in the Keshav Rai Temple in Mathura:
"During this month of Ramzan abounding miracles the Emperor ..issued orders for the demolition of the temple situated in Mathura, famous as the Dehra of Kesho Rai. In a short time by the great exertions of his officers, the destruction of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished, and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditure of a large sum....The idols, large and small, set with costly jewels,which had been set up in the temple, were brought to Agra, and buried under the steps of the mosque of the Begam Sahib, in order to be continually trodden upon. The name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad." (Maasir i Alamgiri, Jadunath Sarkar)

Alternate translation, Maasir i Alamgiri, Editor, H Eliot
"The richly-jewelled idols taken from the pagan temples were trans­ferred to Ágra, and there placed beneath the steps leading to the Nawáb Begam Sáhib's mosque, in order that they might ever be pressed under foot by the true believers. Mattra changed its name into Islámábád, and was thus called in all official documents, as well as by the people."

Regarding the idols in Jodhpur temples:
On Sunday, the 25th May[1679]/24th Rabi. S., Khan Jahan Bahadur came from Jodhpur, after demolishing the temples and bringing with himself some cart-loads of idols, and had audience of the Emperor, who highly praised him and ordered that the idols, which were mostly jewelled, golden,silvery, bronze, copper or stone, should be cast in the yard(jilaiikhanah) of the Court and under the steps of the Jam'a mosque, to be trodden on. They remained so for some time and at last their very names were lost. (Maasir i Alamgiri, Jadunath Sarkar)

Alternate translation from Maasir i Alamgiri, Editor H Eliot

"On the 24th Rabí'u-l ákhir, Khán-Jahán Bahádur arrived from Jodhpúr, bringing with him several cart­loads of idols, taken from the Hindú temples that had been razed. His Majesty gave him great praise. Most of these idols were adorned with precious stones, or made of gold, silver, brass, copper or stone; it was ordered that some of them should be cast away in the out-offices, and the remainder placed beneath the steps of the grand mosque, there to be trampled under foot. There they lay a long time, until, at last, not a vestige of them was left.

Ms. Truschke probably omits these details on idol desecration because these were egregious acts of religious intolerance which cannot be contextualized as political acts or acts of 'justice/royal obligation'.

 (Continued in Part 3)

Part 1

Part 3

Aurangzeb, The Man and the Myth, Audrey Truschke, Book Review - Part 1

This book and its author have been in the news for a few years.  
 

Ms. Truschke's primary aim in this book appears to be to absolve Aurangzeb the Mughal Emperor, of the stain of religious bigotry by providing an array of historical facts and by contextualizing him in his time.  She terms as biased earlier historians' narrations about Aurangzeb as a religious fanatic. She writes that contemporary Hindutva propaganda about him is bigoted in its turn as well as inauthentic and ahistorical.

I would like nothing better than for Hindutva propaganda against past centuries' Indian Muslims to be decisively refuted. Such propaganda has become an unbearable burden to carry for the Indian state, the Indian political realm, and for today's Indian Muslims going about their daily lives.

Unfortunately, to me as a cursory layman reader of history, she does not succeed in her efforts on behalf of Aurangzeb. She is not the objective secular historian of Aurangzeb that a pluralist secular India is awaiting.

Her problems are three-fold.

Firstly, her biography appears to be a political biography, clearly written for a political purpose, and so fails to be historically authoritative. 

Secondly, her historical facts are selective, which leaves the ages (and the reader) hanging with regard to some consequential actions and policies of religious discrimination practiced by Aurangzeb. ( Part 2 )

Thirdly, her contextualization while reasonable and well-argued in many instances breaks down when discussing some of Aurangzeb's egregious actions. It does not serve to absolve Aurangzeb of religious intolerance unless one is fundamentally biased against Hindus and Hinduism, to the extent that some sections of her book appear to be ghost written by Pakistani nationalists(whose arguments on such matters closely resemble hers, in my personal observation). ( Part 3 )

To expand on the above
1. Her book is written as a political exercise, a history written explicitly in service of showing that Aurangzeb was not a religious bigot towards his Hindu subjects over whom he ruled, and under whose laws, governance structures and edicts they lived.

One indication is that her arguments appear to offer a false binary of only two choices- either you think the facts show Aurangzeb to be a religious bigot on many occasions and hence label yourself a Hindutva bigot (unless you are non-Hindu in which case you are just misinformed). The other choice is Aurangzeb was only a striver for justice. His actions and policies towards Hindus could never ever be considered religious bigotry at work because these acts were justified by his sincerely held political/Islamic/justice-driven motives, and were well-deserved by the Hindu targets of such acts.  In contrast, for example, Ms. Truschke implies that his acts of persecution of Shia Bohras were in fact acts of religious bigotry. She clearly believes that unlike Hindus, Shia Bohras were innocent victims as she offers little justification for his acts against them.

This is an artificial binary choice. As she herself states, the history of Aurangzeb is not a binary, it is a series of  historical facts, acts, events, and people. Aurangzeb could be religiously bigoted towards Hindus during various episodes of his reign and have had an array of other motivations, at other times. This cannot be authoritatively presented as an either/or unless Ms. Truschke lived during that time and Aurangzeb was personally known to her. But she still claims the authority to pronounce that all of Aurangzeb's actions towards Hindus were not the product of religious bigotry. This is ahistorical and political.

Whatever Aurangzeb did is plain history, and a plain historian would state it and present point and counterpoint on such a question.However, she goes a step further and projects her own value judgements about Aurangzeb as the absolute historical truth with respect to Hindus of his time. That makes it political propaganda.
 
Another false binary she presents is about British characterizations of the despotism of Muslim rule vs British colonial rule over India(p 9). She implies that in trying to justify colonial rule over India as the better alternative, the British were selfishly motivated in criticizing Muslim rule, hence everything they described of Muslim rulers should be discounted, including  several colonial era translations of medieval and premodern Muslim historians.

For Indians reading this history this is not a binary choice between the two. Forefathers of today's Indians were subjects under both Indian rulers and British colonial rulers. They suffered famine, disease, poverty, religious discrimination under all. Colonial British rule being bad  does not absolve medieval and premodern Muslim rule (and Hindu rule of those periods) from being despotic.  Only a propagandist or politician would present narrations about the despotism of medieval and colonial rulers as either/or.
 

In fact, there are kernels of truth about facts and events to be found in all historical narrations, even court historians' hagiographies. If criticism of medieval and premodern Muslim rulers was solely ahistorical British colonial propaganda, by the same principle, Ms. Truschke and her fellow like-minded historians'  wholesale dismissal of colonial British criticism and historiography(including colonial era translations of Muslim histories) is also ahistorical modern propaganda on behalf of Muslim rulers. Who knows why they indulge in it.

For example, Siyar al-Mutaʾaḫirīn(1781)  (which would likely be dismissed by Ms. Truschke as a 'colonial or company translation' ) compares both Mughal rule and East India Company rule in detail and points out the faults of both, also in great detail. For instance, from the historian's description and point of view, the later Mughals had become bad rulers, and the East India Company men which followed were terrible as well, though in different ways, and he describes both in detail. Hindu rajas of the time were no great shakes, either. For a plain historian, as opposed to a politician/propagandist, there is no need for false binaries.  

Another indication that the history is political is her commentary on Aurangzeb's treatment of Hindu religious practices, and policies towards Hindu subjects. She writes (p 111)
'..Mughal royal obligations demanded strong intervention to prevent their subjects from being hoodwinked. For most temples in Benares and elsewhere, Aurangzeb ordered Mughal officials to investigate alleged dubious practices. But in the case of certain institutions, including the Vishvanatha and Keshava Deva Temples, he deemed demolition appropriate.'

Now imagine Aurangzeb's Hindu subjects were all Christians and Jews and Hindu temples were churches and synagogues. It will never be argued that a Muslim emperor destroyed churches and synagogues as part of his noble obligation to end dubious practices in Christianity and Judaism and to prevent Christians and Jews from being hoodwinked. Politics is the art of the possible and modern Christians and Jews would not accept any such dubious ahistorical justifications from Ms. Truschke.
 
Under the early Ottoman Empire, despite the state's relative religious tolerance towards Christian sects and perhaps state acceptance of Orthodox church hierarchy, many churches were eventually destroyed or co-opted as mosques. How many argue in the modern day that churches in the Ottoman Empire were demolished as a royal obligation to reform Christianity. It is a more common explanation that the drive to establish the primacy of Islam under the Ottoman Empire was the cause of such demolitions.

Yet, Ms. Truschke implies the Vishvanatha and Keshava Deva Temples were demolished for alleged dubious practices. This very much resembles Pakistani nationalist argumentation that Muslim iconoclasm was carried out not out of Muslim religious zealotry against idol worshipers or to undermine Hindu political rivals (as she argues in the previous page with respect to the same temples) but for purposes of Hindu religious reform. Only if you are fundamentally anti-Hindu would you in the modern era tout the demolition of temples as Hindu religious reform. Certainly no medieval or premodern iconoclast has ever claimed the desire to reform Hinduism. This is a purely political argument.

Any claim that keeping Hinduism and Hindus free of dubious practices was a motivation for Aurangzeb to demolish temples is without any historical basis and belongs to the same school of history in which Ayesha Jalal claimed to know Jinnah's inner thoughts about not wanting the partition of India despite many years of his statements and actions to the contrary.

Another aspect of Ms. Truschke's arguments is how she assigns motivations to various episodes in Aurangzeb's reign. Ms. Truschke never ever assigns to Aurangzeb, a self-avowedly devout Sunni Muslim, the simplest of motivations namely to establish the primacy/supremacy of Sunni Islam over his subjects in his realm.

When Aurangzeb acted out of apparent religious intolerance, she assigns political motivations(temple demolitions,p 109-110), or the wish to please the ulema (recalling all endowed lands given to Hindus, p 105). At other times, when Aurangzeb acted out of apparent religious tolerance, she does not speculate whether he had political motivations(shield temples from interference, grant land to Hindu communities, provide stipends to Hindu spiritual figures, p 102-105)  or administrative compulsions(Hindus in Mughal bureaucracy,p 71-73). Instead, she implies that these were driven by his religious tolerance. About some extremely intolerant acts of Aurangzeb where no political motivations are plausible, she omits reporting the full extent of his policy and touts the justice motivation(response to reports of Brahmins' religious teachings, p 111)(discussed in detail later in this review). Again, these assignments look inconsistent even to a layman.  

There is nothing wrong in writing a political biography of Aurangzeb in service of a political view point. However, it cannot be an authoritative historical one at the same time.

(continued in Part 2) 

Part 2

Part 3