snehal page

While calling other historians biased the author failed to hide her own biases. Few disparities in her narrative: 1) Aurangzeb must have killed millions of people in his expansionist wars. But he is uncomfortable about few alleged casualties in religious celebrations! 2) Whatever atrocities he committed against Hindu temples and Sikhs, were to squash the rebellions, therefore acceptable. Fine! But why were these rebellions happening if he was so benevolent? If the rebels like Shivaji were only fighting to grab more power, why the commons not only backed but loved them in their selfish endeavour? Not to mention it was extremely dangerous to appose the might of Mughal regime under extremely ruthless emperor! Why can’t ”historians” like Audrey understand that people of medieval India barred muslims were tired of living like second class citizens? 3) Why compare Aurangzeb with his “contemporary Mughal” rulers that too not properly? (Shouldn’t they be predecessors?) and not with Shivaji? He too was liberal in his policies. He employed Muslims. He didn’t harass other religions places and was much more decent human being in general. 4) why people dismiss demolition of “few” temples? How would a muslim feel if Mecca was demolished? Kashi Viswanath is been important pilgrimage for Indians. Demolishing it didn’t help Aurangzeb. It just brought lot of resentment for Mughal empire and sow the seeds of more rebellion. There are more… All in all the book is other side, not balanced history like it claims. That’s been said I do not support targeting today’s Muslim for Aurangzeb’s sins. He should remain where he belongs in history.