As the 17th century Mughal ruler Aurangzeb rocks 21st century India, we raise these questions on the show: Was Aurangzeb vs Marathas a Hindua vs Muslims battle? Is Aurangzeb seen by historians purely as a villainous ruler? Watch as some of the top historians share their perspectives on these and more on Historians Roundtable with Rajdeep Sardesai.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Showdown over Aurangzeb
00:2317th century Mughal ruler rocks 21st century politics
00:30Aurangzeb vs Marathas
00:36Movie on Sambhaji Maharaj ignites debate
00:51Was Aurangzeb vs Marathas a Hindu vs Muslims battle?
01:00Historians Roundtable with Rajdeep Sardesai
01:30Aurangzeb vs Marathas
02:01How does one locate Aurangzeb in contemporary Indian society and politics?
02:06We've been hearing from the Netas in recent days and weeks
02:10It's time to focus on those who've actually studied history
02:14Aurangzeb's contentious legacy is the focus of today's roundtable
02:19Joining us today on this roundtable
02:22Meda Deshmukh Bhaskar is the author The Life and Death of Sambhaji
02:26Professor Rameshwar Prasad Bhauguna is former professor
02:30Department of History and Culture at Jamia Millia Islamia
02:33Dr. Ruchika Sharma is a historian on medieval Indian history
02:37Professor Mridula Mukherjee is historian and former director Nehru Memorial Museum
02:41Professor Makhan Lal is historian and author
02:45And Shahid Siddiqui is chairman Interfaith Peace Foundation
02:49I appreciate each of you joining us
02:52And I'm going to come one by one to the big questions I'm raising
02:56First of all, is Aurangzeb seen by historians purely as a villainous ruler?
03:03Is that how we should see him?
03:05I want to get each of my guests to respond briefly to my top question there
03:10Why don't you start off, Professor Mridula Mukherjee
03:13Should Aurangzeb be seen as purely a villainous figure?
03:22No, not at all. The answer is very clear
03:25He was a complex personality as most people are
03:28And we have to, more than anything else, we have to remember the times in which he lived
03:35We are talking about medieval times
03:37We are not talking about modern 20th or 21st century
03:41And I think what is very important is to put Aurangzeb in perspective
03:47There is no doubt that Aurangzeb was no Akbar
03:50He was not doing Sulaikul
03:52He was not having, you know, trying to come out with a whole new secular perspective
03:59But, in fact, there are various policies which were started by Akbar
04:06Which were continued by Aurangzeb
04:08First and foremost, that a large number of Hindu nobility
04:14Were there in the administration of the Mughal Empire
04:18In fact, the proportion of Mughal nobility under Aurangzeb went up to more than 30%
04:25Akbar had only achieved about 21%
04:28Just as Akbar had relied on the Rajputs
04:31Very very powerful Rajput rulers were his allies
04:35He made marital alliances with them
04:37That continued right through this period
04:40And Aurangzeb also relied on Mirza Raja Jai Singh, for example, Jaswant Singh
04:46For his whole Deccan campaign
04:48In fact, if you look at the history of that time
04:52It is not a Bollywood movie of heroes and villains
04:56In which, you know, the villains are the Muslims and the heroes are the Hindus
05:00And Shivaji is the hero and Aurangzeb is the villain
05:04It's a complex history
05:06Aurangzeb made a number of Rajput temples
05:12Okay, go ahead
05:13Let me stop you where you say he's a complex figure
05:16And take that to Professor Makhanlal
05:19Professor Makhanlal responds
05:21In fact, I stopped Ridula Mukherjee when she was making the point
05:24That Aurangzeb, particularly in the early period of his reign
05:27Actually gave monies to temple trusts as well
05:30In the latter period, he also demolished temples
05:33He's a complex figure
05:35Should he be seen purely as a villain, Professor Makhanlal?
05:42No, I would not like to see him as a villain or as a hero
05:46As a historian, I would like to see him
05:49What has been he described as in Masre Alamgiri or in Fatwa Alamgiri
05:56Because when you judge a complex personality or simple personality
06:00You don't give a judgment in the historical issues
06:03Here is Masre Alamgiri
06:06Which is his court record
06:09And when court record says about his personality, about his deeds
06:14I think we need not go in interpretation beyond certain point
06:19When we say that 30% of nobility was Hindu
06:24Well sir, 90% of the military, police and bureaucracy during British time were Hindus
06:31Indians
06:32And never in history British were more than 62,000
06:36And they ruled over 44 crores people
06:38This cannot be criteria in the judgment of the people
06:41If it was so good, why did you throw them away?
06:44Number one
06:45Number two
06:46Anybody's personality has to be judged of a complex or simple
06:51How he treats his subjects
06:54When there is a discrimination in treatment
06:57Well, one has to accept that yes
07:00He saw his people not with one eye but two eyes
07:04Somebody has to pay to live a life that has been given by God
07:08Jajiya means you give for your living space
07:12You are allowed to live so that you pay the tax
07:15That is a discrimination
07:17Also, it is a discrimination when Hindus people are taxed twice
07:23Businessmen and Muslim businessmen are not allowed to give any tax
07:29They are just made free
07:30So all I will say, I will not take much time
07:33Temples are destroyed, not the mosque
07:35Not the Girija Ghar
07:37Not any other thing
07:38And all these are his court records
07:41Not interpretation
07:42I can read out pages after pages from this book
07:45Which is his court record
07:46And therefore, I will say very politely
07:50That he may have been a complex personality
07:53But for simple laity, for common people
07:57He does not go into complexity of the ruler
08:00He goes into what he is doing
08:03So what he was doing according to you was pure religious discrimination
08:10From your perspective, pure religious discrimination
08:12I am going to go one by one
08:14Dr. Ruchika Sharma, your view
08:16Should he be seen purely as a villain as he is now increasingly seen?
08:21No, as a historian I would see him as a king
08:25And like all kings, some of his policies were good
08:28And some of his policies were bad
08:30Since Professor Makhanlal has raised some important points
08:33I think we should not only see Aurangzeb from Masir-e-Alamgiri
08:36There are many other texts which also talk about him
08:38There are many other inscriptions and farmans of his
08:40Which offer a very different picture than what is popular today
08:43Just to give you an example
08:45There are inscriptions upon inscriptions on temples
08:47Which say that Aurangzeb granted land to these temples
08:51So for example, there is a temple called Gopinath temple
08:54There is an inscription 1699
08:57Which says that Naunidharay was the person who got this temple built
09:00And the tank built under the auspices of Aurangzeb
09:05He was the person who gave money to build that temple
09:08It was a Shiv temple
09:09We have Dawji Maharaj temple with a similar inscription
09:12Saying Aurangzeb built the Nakharkhana and the temple
09:15We have Sumeshwar Dev temple where there is a pillar called the Dharam Danda
09:19Which says that around 16 temples were granted by Aurangzeb
09:22When he visited Allahabad
09:24We have many saints that he gave grants to
09:27We have Ramjiven Gosain
09:29He was talking about funders
09:31One of the biggest funders of Aurangzeb's empire
09:34Was a Jain person called Shantidas Javari
09:37Who was given the grants of Abu Girnar
09:40As well as Shatrunjay, these Jain temples
09:42They were all given very lucrative grants
09:45In fact, we must also look at Aurangzeb
09:48Through the lenses of the Jain texts
09:51So there is a text called Brahma Vilas
09:54Which is written around 1700 AD
09:56There is a text called Padmanandi Panchavishaka
09:59Which is written around the 1670s
10:01Both of which say that Aurangzeb was a very religious tolerant ruler
10:05Something which we completely disagree with in the popular sphere today
10:09But the Jains over there say that we were able to practice our religion
10:12We were able to write about our religion in these texts
10:16Under the ages of Aurangzeb
10:19So clearly, there is a very different picture
10:21Which comes into the fore
10:24When you look at other texts as well
10:26And not just focus on Maasai, Real and Giri
10:28So I think it's a historian's duty
10:30To actually look at a holistic figure
10:32Of Aurangzeb as a king
10:34And also talk about the policies
10:36Which are quote-unquote good policies
10:39And not just quote-unquote bad policies
10:41As considered in the popular sphere
10:43So I would not think of Aurangzeb as a villain
10:45I would think of him as a king
10:47Who had both good policies and bad policies
10:49And it's very important that his good policies
10:51Are also talked about in the popular sphere
10:53Meda Deshmukh, very interesting
10:55The way you put it there Mr. Sharma
10:57Meda Deshmukh Bhaskar, author of
10:59The Life and Death of Shambhaji
11:01You know, it is actually the manner in which
11:03Aurangzeb tortured Shambhaji
11:05Tried to force him to convert to Islam
11:09Which is part of both folklore in Maharashtra
11:12And now increasingly through cinema it seems
11:14Across India
11:15Should he be seen purely as a villain?
11:17Yeah, can you hear me?
11:19Yes I can
11:21Yeah, so
11:23I would like to just state facts
11:25From various books you know
11:27Whether he was villain or
11:29You can judge it
11:31Like it is not just the Jizya tax
11:33Okay
11:35It was another tax
11:37Which was called Khara
11:39Which was 50%
11:41Those people who
11:43Who held the land
11:45In his empire
11:47And who cultivated it
11:49Because agriculture was the only industry then
11:51And
11:53Those who were non-believers
11:55Were taxed 50%
11:57Of their produce
11:59And this is
12:01Given in many books you know
12:03Whatever books, I do not want to show
12:05There is a list of books here
12:07So when
12:0950% of the produce
12:11Could not be paid
12:13It is also given in historian
12:17Dr Habib's book
12:19That most of the
12:21Rayaat or the agriculturists
12:23Went
12:25On empty stomach
12:27Because they had to give so much
12:29Of produce, 50% of their
12:31Income
12:33To the king, I mean to the
12:35Revenue collectors of the Mughals
12:37Now
12:39There are letters
12:41Several letters documented
12:43That from Aurangzeb
12:45That if you cannot collect
12:47The wanted produce
12:49From these
12:51Agriculturists
12:53Then take away their children and wives
12:55And sell them as slaves
12:57So many
12:59These are the letters available
13:01There may be
13:03Very beautiful monuments
13:05They have made
13:07Palaces and the forts
13:09But the Rayaat, the farmers
13:11The backbone
13:13Of the
13:15Empire, they were an
13:17Absolutely sad population
13:19You know, that time
13:21And the repercussions
13:23Of those are still seen
13:25In India
13:27Okay, I will come
13:29It is interesting how we are getting varying perspectives
13:31Professor Rameshwar Prasad
13:33Bahuguna, former professor
13:35Of history and culture at Jamia Millia
13:37Should we see Aurangzeb as a villain?
13:39That is the initial central question I am asking
13:41Each of you as opening remarks
13:43Yeah, actually
13:45Aurangzeb ruled
13:47For almost 50 years
13:49And like Akbar
13:51Now
13:53Over this period of 50 years
13:55The policies
13:57Never remained the same
13:59Just now
14:01It was pointed out that
14:03The land revenue demand
14:05On the peasants was very high
14:07And different kinds of taxes
14:09Were imposed on the people
14:11You know, about 60 years ago
14:13When Professor Hauyus' book appeared
14:15Agrarian System of
14:17Mughal India
14:19Some people
14:21Pointed out that
14:23One day
14:25His interpretation of the decline
14:27Of the Mughal Empire could be misused
14:29By communalists
14:31Because the rulers were Muslims
14:33And most of the peasants were Hindus
14:35So that is what I heard
14:37Just now
14:39Unfortunately, you know
14:41The peasants belonged to all the communities
14:43Whether they were Hindus or Muslims
14:45So there were no different
14:47Revenue rates for Hindu peasants
14:49And Muslim peasants
14:51Now, so far as Jizya is concerned
14:53Wasn't Jizya
14:55Specifically for Hindus?
14:57Yes, but
14:59One may ask the question
15:01Why it took him 20 years
15:03Or 22 years rather
15:05To impose Jizya
15:07That is the point I am raising
15:09That over a period of 50 years
15:11His policies constantly changed
15:13It's not that today
15:15He came to power, ascended to the throne
15:17And next day imposed Jizya
15:19Why is it that
15:21Some of his leading officers
15:23His leading commanders
15:25Were Hindus
15:27I mean including the one
15:29Who was in charge of military operations
15:31Against Shivaji
15:33Mirza Raja Jai Singh
15:35Who was a mansardar of 7000
15:37Jat and Sawar
15:39Mirza Raja Jai Singh was the person
15:41Who led Mughal military operations
15:43In the Deccan
15:45And was responsible for the
15:47Treaty of Purandar
15:49In 1665
15:51So
15:53Now
48:55It has been taken over by politicians
48:57And historians have become irrelevant
48:59Wonderful statement
49:01But let us say one thing
49:03Who is responsible for this
49:05When you don't write history as history
49:07You write as official history
49:09You write as communal history
49:11You write as secular history
49:13Where you are the judge
49:15You are the pleader
49:17You are the one who judges the judgments
49:19Then this was out to happen
49:21Had the history been written
49:23In correct perspective
49:25People of this country
49:27Should have been taught
49:29What is the real history
49:31History is a past
49:33You have to live with past
49:35You don't have to live in the past
49:37People would have learned
49:39That this is history
49:41Then there would have been no demand
49:43For removal of this grave
49:45There would have been no demand
49:47For having a Teja Mela
49:49Having this Mela
49:51It is squarely responsible
49:53Playing politics with history
49:55Dr. Ruchika Sharma
49:57Have historians
49:59Dr. Ruchika Sharma
50:01Have historians played politics
50:03With history
50:05Absolutely not
50:07Politicians have played politics with history
50:09Historians have been
50:11Crying horse
50:13Telling anybody who will listen
50:15Who will read
50:17That Aurangzeb should not be judged
50:19Along communal lines
50:21Which is what has been happening for a very long time
50:23Because it is a very convenient communal politics
50:25That happens for the Hindu
50:27And they constantly keep fanning this
50:29After sometime or the other
50:31Whether it is the Mughals
50:33Or whether it is the Aurangzeb
50:35Who according to them represents the epitome
50:37Of this bad Mughal ruler
50:39And temple destroyer
50:41And this villainous king
50:43I would think that
50:45Aurangzeb needs to be seen
50:47As a king
50:49And as long as you are going to only
50:51Align him with his religion
50:53You are actually using him as a political weapon
50:55Because if you are not
50:57Aligning him with his religion
50:59Then his other facets also come into play
51:01The fact that he gave grants to 20 temples
51:03The fact that Jains think
51:05Jains have a very different opinion on him
51:07The fact that there are Brahmins in his court
51:09Like Chandra Brahmin etc
51:11Who think that Aurangzeb was a fantastic ruler
51:13He is such a powerful ruler
51:15He has a lot of respect for somebody like Aurangzeb
51:17Who is ruling with all his might
51:19And very efficient administration
51:21If Aurangzeb was truly
51:23The religious bigot
51:25That most people tend to think
51:27That he was
51:29He wouldn't have allowed
51:31After the treaty of Purandar
51:33To let Shivaji work under him
51:35Actually asking him to go and control
51:37The fort of Panhala
51:39For the Mughal empire's benefit
51:41Which Shivaji was not able to do
51:43As many Rajputs were
52:07Actually Aurangzeb
52:09Has been used or rather misused
52:11For political purposes
52:13Not just now
52:15But since the colonial times
52:17This image of Aurangzeb
52:19Was first created by colonial historians
52:21Then by some Indian historians
52:23Like Jadunath Sarkar
52:25Who blamed Aurangzeb's religious policy
52:27For the downfall of the Mughal empire
52:29What serious historians have done
52:31In the last 60 years or so
52:33Is to balance
52:35History writing
52:37And put forward a correct perspective
52:39On the decline of the Mughal empire
52:41Where Aurangzeb is to be held responsible
52:43In certain ways
52:45But he is not the only cause
52:47His religious policy is not the only cause
52:49Not even the primary cause
52:51Of the decline of the Mughal empire
52:53And other serious factors
52:55Structural factors, social and economic factors
52:57Come to the fore
52:59So that is what serious historians
53:01I do not know why Prof. Makarlal
53:03Is not happy with this new trend
53:05Because this new trend is trying to
53:07Restore the balance
53:09Let me give him
53:11All of you have in a way
53:13Raised various points
53:15I need to give Prof. Makarlal a final word
53:17As a result
53:19Prof. you have been rather critical
53:21Of historians more than the politicians
53:23I am giving you a final word as a result
53:29My final words
53:31Are for three people
53:33One the historians
53:35Who should learn
53:37To write not balanced history
53:39Not disbalanced history
53:41Not secular history
53:43Not communal history
53:45Write history as a history
53:47To the politicians
53:49Please do not use history in your politics
53:51Stay in politics the way you want
53:53Leave us out
53:55Leave the history out
53:57And the people of this country
53:59Through you
54:01I request that please
54:03Learn from history
54:05Learn the lessons from history
54:07Also live with history
54:09Don't live in history
54:11Thank you very much
54:13Very well put
54:15Learn to live with history
54:17Don't live in history
54:19I think that is a lovely one line
54:21On which to end
54:23And I hope that our politicians realize
54:25That they are not historians
54:27And when they choose to selectively interpret history
54:29To fulfill their political ends
54:31It is very divisive
54:33Particularly in a multi-faith society
54:35Like ours with such a complex long history
54:37To all my wonderful panelists
54:39Who have joined me
54:41It's been fascinating listening to you all
54:43I hope just like all those
54:45Millions of viewers who have been watching
54:47At least a few of you
54:49Also watch this program intently
54:51And share it widely
54:53Thanks for watching
54:55Stay well, stay safe
54:57Jai Hind, Namaskar