Talk:Aurangzeb

Lead

@RegentsPark: The lead that you are restoring is full of heavily detailed points regarding mainly Hindutva-driven criticism of the subject whereas most of the article is clearly not about that. That's why I had made a simpler version for a lead to cover the necessary points without going into too many details. Capitals00 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Though I'm not averse to simplification, I think, perhaps, you oversimplified the content in the lead. The section on Assessments and Legacy is long and detailed and reducing it to one sentence (admired and criticized) is overly simplistic. You might want to write a longer summary that includes major opinions on why he is both admired as well as criticized. Also, for the purposes of consensus, it might not be a bad idea to propose the change on the talk page first.RegentsPark (comment) 18:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The current leads talk too much about temple destruction, a notion that has been already conclusively addressed in scholarship. Same with those executions which were politically motivated, not religiously.

The current paragraph is:

Aurangzeb has been described as one of the most controversial rulers in Indian history,[6] though his rule has also been the subject of praise.[7] Multiple interpretations of Aurangzeb's life and reign over the years by critics have led to a very complicated legacy. Some argue that his policies abandoned his predecessors' legacy of pluralism and religious tolerance, citing his introduction of the jizya tax and other policies based on Islamic ethics; his demolition of Hindu temples; the executions of his elder brother Dara Shikoh, King Sambhaji of Maratha[8][9] and Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur;[10][11][d] and the prohibition and supervision of behaviour and activities that are forbidden in Islam such as gambling, fornication, and consumption of alcohol and narcotics.[12][13] At the same time, some historians question the historical authenticity of the claims of his critics, arguing that his destruction of temples has been exaggerated,[14][15] and noting that he built more temples than he destroyed,[16] paid for their maintenance, employed significantly more Hindus in his imperial bureaucracy than his predecessors, and opposed bigotry against Hindus and Shia Muslims.[17]

It should be changed to:

Known for creating the largest Indian empire, he was the longest reigning monarch of Mughal empire. His rule has been the subject of praise and criticism. Some of his critics argue that he policies abandoned his predecessors' legacy of pluralism and religious tolerance and while others rejected these assertions arguing that he employed significantly more Hindus in his imperial bureaucracy than his predecessors, and opposed bigotry against Hindus and Shia Muslims.

Of course, I will add the sources. Capitals00 (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain why are you calling the original paragraph Hindutva? It is not religious or political if it is simply reporting history. I would say that it should be changed back to what it was as this is the more accurate and comprehensive description of Aurangzeb. Understand1528 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ping RegentsPark. Capitals00 (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Looks good though I'd tweak the language a bit, mainly to connect the main arguments of the two sides. How about this. Known for being the longest reigning monarch of the Mughal empire and for creating the largest Indian empire, Aurangzeb also has a complicated legacy. His critics, citing his actions against the Sikhs and his conservative view of Islam, argue that he abandoned the legacy of pluralism and tolerance that characterized the early Mughal emperors. Other scholars, however, reject these assertions, arguing that he opposed bigotry against Hindus and Shia Muslims and that he employed significantly more Hindus in his imperial bureaucracy than his predecessors. Technically you don't need to cite anything since this is the lead, and all the material is in the body, but, given that this is Aurangzeb, .....! RegentsPark (comment) 16:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would replace “the largest Indian Empire” with “one of the largest Indian Empires.”

  it is generally disputed whether Aurangzeb or Ashoka’s empire was larger. SKAG123 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2024 Suggestion

I am linking to the Jāṭ rebellion section from Pushtimarga Sampradaya, I would like to add an anchor or add a note <!-- --> to keep the link from breaking. Thank you. Moritoriko (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Longest Reign

Aurangzeb was not the longest reigning Mughal emperor, he was the second longest. He reigned for 48 years 7 months 0 days, whereas the longest, Akbar, reigned 49 years 9 months 0 days. List of emperors of the Mughal Empire The person who locked this article should edit that. GrAmPaGe EdIt FiXeR (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 14.139.114.222 (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggested addition to "Literatures"

Aurangzeb was also featured prominently in this novel: Beneath a Marble Sky, A novel of the Taj Mahal, by John Shors, published in 2004. (Also prominently featuring Shah Jahan, Jahanara, etc.) I'm not permitted to edit this article, so someone who is might add this info.

(I have nothing to do with the book or author, just have read it and thought others might find it interesting. I came here to read more about the subject, and was surprised the book wasn't listed.) Euterpsichore (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Aurangjeb killed his brothers and imprisoned his father and took over the reign. His brutal and inhuman act should also be included to give full picture of his life 2402:E280:3E1F:912:7888:446B:EDD5:4A91 (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"built more temples than he destroyed"

The line that Aurangzeb built more temples than he destroyed is a claim that, as stated by Copland et al. (2013), should not be included. Copland et al. state in a single line Even Aurangzeb, infamous in the old historiography as a destroyer of temples, actually built many more than he destroyed, in the section "Dhimmīs, jizya and religious patronage" as part of a paragraph on instances when the Mughal Empire's stance on the state-relgion relationship deviated from its normal pragmatism. Copland et al. provides no further context or evidence for this claim and simply cite the two sources:

• Metcalf, Barbara D. (Nov 1995). "Presidential Address: Too Little and Too Much: Reflections on Muslims in the History of India". The Journal of Asian Studies. 54 (4). Duke University Press: 115.
• Brown, Katherine Butler (Jan 2007). "Did Aurangzeb Ban Music? Questions for the Historiography of His Reign". Modern Asian Studies. 41 (1). Cambridge University Press: 958.

Starting with Brown (2007), this article's focus is on Aurangzeb's relationship with music. In the conclusion she moves generally to the stereotyped view of Aurangzeb's Islamism and his religious iconoclasm. She mentions how Aurangzeb praised the temples of Ellora as the work of Allah. She then states Barbara Metcalf points out that Aurangzeb built more temples than he destroyed, with a simple citation to the same article Copland et al. (2013) cites. She then goes on to mention how Aurangzeb granted tax free grants to temples. Thus Brown (2007) does not provide any evidence that Aurangzeb built more temples than he destroyed, having just a citation to Metcalf (1995).

Coming now to Metcalf (1995), this article focuses on the narratives of and on Muslims in Indian history. In a paragraph on the view of the initial Turkic invasions in Hindu texts and the cultural views of them as anti-Brahmanical people who destroyed temples, she states Overturning or capturing temple deities was common to all conquerors since temples were so clearly part of claims to sovereignty. and then follows a footnote stating

A lively debate ensued at the 1994 Boston meeting on this subject: Lloyd Rudolph noted that Aurangzeb, painted as the great destroyer of Hindu temples in the received historiography, in fact built more temples than he destroyed. C.M. Naim pointed out that rival Muslim powers destroyed the ritual centers of their opponents: for example, the Mughals destroyed the gate to the Jamiʻ Mosque of the Sharqi dynasty in Jaunpur. Richard Eaton's paper described the Shaivite sacking of Jain temples. Eleanor Zelliott suggested that Hindus tended only to take over images of rivals while Muslims destroyed them.

This footnote again does not provide evidence but a citation to Lloyd Rudolf at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in Boston, Massachusetts. Now while Eaton's 1994 paper was published and given a reference in Metcalf (1995) (along with Cynthia Talbot, Richard H. Davis, Philip B. Wagoner's papers they presented), Lloyd Rudolph's statement (it is never mentioned whether Rudolph had a paper written or simply an oral remark) has no further citations. Without any reference to Lloyd Rudolph's work (or any other capable scholar) proving, with evidence, that Aurangzeb "built" (not simply patronized) more temples than he destroyed, this statement should not be included; as the comments these the above scholars made are not reliable for this claim's inclusion on the Wikipedia article, as the focuses of their work are on other (often broader) topics that only mention this idea that Aurangzeb built more temples than he destroyed in single offhand lines.Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)