Amidst an intense polarization debate, Aurangzeb’s violence, proclamation and constant focus on exposing the objectives behind the policies, giving them the impact of these incidents, often give an impression that she is making them trivial and giving himself a position as a judge for Aurangzeb. For example, she clearly describes the execution of Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur as a person who opposed the Mughals and was killed in such a way because Aurangzeb had no tolerance for rebellion.
In contrast, historians like Satish Chandra, who have studied Aurangzeb’s religious policies, have taken more overall views. Chandra has accepted the religious undertakings of some Aurangzeb’s work, such as imposing JizyaThe Hindu discriminating in the attack on Hyderabad, their anti -Shia sentiments, and calls to harm some temples, while keeping these policies in the broad political and economic context of that time.
he argues:
Furthermore, Truschke argues that British colonialism was also condemnable by Indian standards, while it urges that the period of Aurangzeb should be evaluated according to the norms of that era.
it Call for extravagance makes space for the emerging group of indic scholarsThose who often reduce issues such as feudalism, caste oppression, subjugation of women, and exploitation of farmers and agricultural laborers under Hindu rule such as Cholas, Nayaks and Rajputs. It is practical to check how the contemporaries considered the circumstances of that time.
Bhim Sen, a Kayastha person from the present Uttar Pradesh, who served under Aurangzeb, wrote the following in his memoir Date: ‘There is oppression of the army, Deshmukh, and zamindars, who take money from farmers on every comprehensible petition; Zamindars do not pay a penny from their purse, but take it from rates and pay the emperor agents. What will I write about the violence and harassment of Amins appointed to gather Jizya It has been newly imposed, because they are beyond the details? ,
Both these farmers, both Hindus and Muslims are often ignored in the statement of South Asian extraordinaryness, focusing on combating allegations of religious intolerance made by Hindutva, which emphasizes some religious grants between Hindu and Muslim elite classes by Mughal rulers and cultural exchange.
It is well documented that most of the conflicts between the Mughals and regional forces as well as the rebellions were primarily political, coalitions often received land grants by crossing religious lines and sections of Brahmins.
However, this argument is mainly used by scholars such as Ram Puniani and Ruchika Sharma to reduce other contradictions, such as topical religious discrimination, jagirdari crisis, nobility, corruption, and tension on the royal treasures due to the Deccan wars.
