Historian Dr Ram Punyani challenges the distorted portrayal of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, urging a more nuanced understanding of his reign in the face of political agendas
Mohammad bin Ismail | Clarion India
NEW DELHI — In recent months, a resurgence of discourse surrounding the legacy of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb has sparked debates across India. Pushed forward by the BJP and its supporters, the narrative surrounding the emperor’s reign has been clouded by accusations, misrepresentation, and what some argue is a deliberate attempt to demonise a significant part of Indian history. This renewed wave of propaganda has not only brought Aurangzeb back into public conversation but has also inadvertently stoked communal tensions, further dividing Hindu-Muslim relations.
The conversation took a prominent turn when Mukesh Kumar, the host of Satya Hindi’s popular YouTube channel, sat down with renowned historian, social scientist, and writer Dr Ram Punyani to dissect the controversial aspects of Aurangzeb’s rule. Satya Hindi, a platform known for providing in-depth news analysis and critical perspectives on politics and history, featured this discussion as part of its broader mission to present “the truth as it is.”
Dr Punyani’s approach to the legacy of Aurangzeb is grounded in facts and offers a refreshing counter-narrative to the commonly held view of the Mughal emperor as a tyrant. The image of Aurangzeb as a bigoted ruler, particularly known for his alleged persecution of Hindus, has been shaped and solidified over centuries. Dr Punyani suggests, however, that this portrayal is far more complex than it may seem, largely due to political and ideological biases that have coloured historical accounts.
Contrary to the widely accepted view of Aurangzeb as a despotic ruler, Dr Punyani argues that his reign was marked by considerable economic prosperity for India. At the height of his empire’s power, India contributed nearly a quarter of the world’s total GDP, a period when its wealth far outstripped that of Western Europe. Dr. Punyani stresses that it was during this period that India played a central role in the global economy, laying the foundations for future growth.
Dr Punyani acknowledges that the jizya tax, often depicted as a symbol of Aurangzeb’s hostility towards Hindus, was indeed reintroduced during his reign. However, he points out that this tax, though controversial, was imposed as a financial necessity rather than a religiously motivated policy. “The jizya tax was not implemented for the first twenty years of his rule, and when it was introduced, it was primarily due to the financial pressures of the southern campaigns,” he explained. The tax, he clarifies, was minimal—only 1.25%—and exempted various groups, including women, the elderly, and Brahmins.
One of the most contentious issues in the ongoing debate is Aurangzeb’s relationship with Hindu temples. He is often accused of destroying several prominent temples, including the Vishwanath Temple in Kashi (Varanasi), a symbol of Hindu heritage. However, Dr. Punyani presents a more nuanced view, stating that Aurangzeb’s policies regarding temples were not uniformly destructive. “Aurangzeb’s actions were driven by political strategy,” Dr Punyani explained, pointing out that the destruction of certain temples might have been politically motivated, linked to accusations of immoral activities.
Importantly, Dr Punyani also highlighted instances where Aurangzeb supported and funded Hindu temples, such as the Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ajmer and the Kamakhya Devi Temple in Assam. “Aurangzeb’s policies towards Hindu temples were complex and cannot be reduced to mere destruction. He helped fund several temples, which contradicts the simplistic narrative of him as a temple-breaker,” he said.
According to Dr Punyani, understanding Aurangzeb’s rule requires considering the political and historical context in which he governed. His empire was a vast and diverse territory, with a complex political landscape that involved balancing the interests of various groups, including regional rulers, military leaders, and religious communities. The assassination of Guru Tegh Bahadur, a key event in the Hindu-Sikh conflict during Aurangzeb’s reign, is often cited as evidence of his religious intolerance. However, Dr Punyani argues that this event needs to be viewed within the larger context of political and military struggles of the time.
“During his reign, Aurangzeb expanded the Mughal Empire, fought numerous rebellions, and consolidated his power in diverse regions. His strategies included not only military conquests but also diplomatic negotiations with Hindu rulers and other regional powers,” Dr Punyani explained. This multi-faceted approach to governance indicates that Aurangzeb was not solely focused on religious motives but also on maintaining the stability and prosperity of his empire.
The portrayal of Aurangzeb has varied widely over the years, influenced by political and ideological shifts. Dr Punyani noted that in colonial-era histories, Aurangzeb was often portrayed as a symbol of Muslim oppression, reinforcing divisive narratives. In contrast, contemporary political climates have redefined his image in India, where he is frequently used as a tool in communal politics. “In today’s India, the image of Aurangzeb has been weaponised for communal purposes, while in Pakistan, he is sometimes viewed more favourably, especially for his commitment to Islamic principles,” Dr Punyani said.
He further explained that this paradox highlights the way historical narratives can be distorted to suit contemporary political needs. “Histories are often written with a political agenda. The negative image of Aurangzeb has been used to fuel division, especially in a post-colonial context, where communal tensions are rampant,” Dr Punyani observed.
Dr Punyani also provided insight into the impact of the Mughal Emperor’s rule on the political dynamics of the empire. Under his reign, the number of Hindu nawabs in the Mughal court rose significantly, with 33 Hindu nawabs serving during his reign—the highest number among any of the Mughal rulers. “This shows that Aurangzeb’s policies were not solely focused on Hindus,” Dr Punyani said. “His empire included strategic alliances with Hindu rulers, who were vital in maintaining the stability of his reign.”
Dr Punyani called for a more balanced and fact-based understanding of Aurangzeb’s legacy. “Aurangzeb’s reign was not free from controversy, but it was also not as one-dimensional as the current narrative suggests,” he said. “Historians and political analysts must take a step back from ideological biases and look at his rule with the complexity and nuance it deserves. By doing so, we can better understand the forces that shaped the Mughal Empire and, by extension, India’s history.”
