Talk:Aurangzeb

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)

"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)

Correction needed for claim about Aurangzeb’s empire size

Hi all, I noticed the line in the Aurangzeb article that says, "His empire was also one of the largest in Indian history." I think this might be misleading. While Aurangzeb’s Mughal Empire was massive (around 4 million sq km at its peak [Richards, John F., The Mughal Empire, 1993, p. 1]), empires like the Maurya Empire were likely larger (est. 5 million sq km, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire]). Even in Aurangzeb’s time, the Maratha Confederacy was expanding rapidly ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Confederacy]). I suggest revising the line to: "His empire was one of the largest in the Mughal period and among the most extensive in India during the late 17th century." Thoughts? ~~~~ CorrectorEdicts CorrectorEdicts (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Overstatement of Mughal Control in South India

Line Reviewed (Reign Section): "Aurangzeb’s campaigns in the Deccan resulted in the annexation of the sultanates of Bijapur (1686) and Golconda (1687), bringing most of South India under Mughal control." Analysis: This is a gross exaggeration. Aurangzeb took Bijapur (1686) and Golconda (1687), but “most of South India” is a stretch [Richards, John F., The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 189]. The Marathas, under Shivaji and Sambhaji, controlled swaths of the Deccan and western India, harassing Mughal forces [Gordon, Stewart, The Marathas 1600–1818, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 91, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/marathas-16001818/7F7A7B7A7B7A7B7A7B7A7B7A]. Southern regions like Tamil Nadu had nayakas who paid lip-service tribute but ran their own show [Eaton, Richard M., India in the Persianate Age: 1000–1765, Penguin, 2019, p. 237, https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/566614/india-in-the-persianate-age-by-richard-m-eaton/]. Mughal “control” was often nominal, with garrisons under constant attack. The statement misleads by suggesting a unified South under Aurangzeb. Suggested Edit: Revise to: "Aurangzeb annexed Bijapur (1686) and Golconda (1687), but Mughal control in South India was limited, with Maratha forces and southern chieftains maintaining significant independence https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/566614/india-in-the-persianate-age-by-richard-m-eaton/." Reason: This edit scraps the “most of South India” myth, directly stating the shaky Mughal grip, backed by Gordon and Eaton. No sugarcoating. CorrectorEdicts

Inaccurate Portrayal of Economic Prosperity

Line Reviewed (Reign Section): "Under Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire reached its greatest economic prosperity, with a sophisticated administrative system." Analysis: This is outright false. Aurangzeb’s reign (1658–1707) was marked by economic decline, not prosperity. His endless Deccan wars, lasting decades, bled the treasury dry, with military spending eating up 50–60% of revenue by the 1690s [Richards, John F., The Mughal Empire, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 245, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mughal-empire/2C6B7F29B9B3B7F2C7A9B7B9B7B9B7B9]. The reimposition of jizya (1679) and high land taxes sparked peasant revolts, like the Jat and Satnami uprisings, crippling agricultural output [Chandra, Satish, Medieval India: From Sultanate to the Mughals, Orient Blackswan, 2005, p. 298, https://www.orientblackswan.com/details?id=9788125029892]. Earlier emperors like Akbar had stronger economies due to stable revenue systems. Calling this “greatest economic prosperity” is baseless and contradicts evidence. The “sophisticated administrative system” bit is a distraction—administration was complex but crumbling under war costs and corruption. Suggested Edit: Revise to: "Under Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire faced severe economic decline due to crippling military costs from Deccan campaigns and heavy taxation, including the jizya, which fueled peasant revolts and weakened agriculture https://www.orientblackswan.com/details?id=9788125029892." Reason: This cuts the false prosperity claim and avoids fluff about administration. It’s straight to the point, backed by Richards and Chandra, showing the economy tanked under Aurangzeb. CorrectorEdicts