There is a whole ‘Aurangzeb Industry’ taking shape. Let’s discuss it on four counts
Channel: LATEST INFO TECH
Date: 15/06/2022

http://festyy.com/eduhmk

Simple questions are always ignored to reproduce two conflicting images of Aurangzeb. HILAL AHMED 13 June, 2022 08:30 am IST
Aurangzeb holding a hawk in c. 1660 | Wikimedia Commons
Text Size: A- A+

 Indian Muslims recognize Aurangzeb as a symbol of their identity? Do they adhere to his political legacy as the last powerful Mughal? Is he really seen as an uncontested Islamic figure? These simple questions are always ignored to reproduce two conflicting images of Aurangzeb: An Islamic tyrant who demolished Hindu places of worship and imposed 

Sharia; and a devout, lenient Muslim who donated land for Hindu temples.
But nothing ever made Aurangzeb a Muslim hero. Muslim intellectuals, political elites, and the masses have always found it difficult to embrace him as an Islamic icon. He is regarded as a ‘problematic figure’ — an intolerant ruler, untrustworthy son and brother, and an enemy of the universal message of Islam. In fact, Aurangzeb could never become a reliable symbol for Muslim politics in India.

Public discourse, on the other hand, relies on a strong assumption that India’s Muslims admire Aurangzeb as a respectable Islamic figure and that any attempt to defame him would upset them. The demand to demolish Aurangzeb’s grave “so that no separatist will come to bow on it” is a convincing manifestation of this belief.

The secular reception of Aurangzeb is equally one-sided. A section of self-claimed secularists wants to destroy the communal “myths” so as to discover a ‘tolerant and secular Aurangzeb’. There is an Aurangzeb ‘industry’ that claims to produce a “fact-based scientifically correct history” of 17th century India to show the richness of the Mughal era.
I find at least four Muslim positions that engage with the legacy of 

Aurangzeb and, in a way, take us beyond the Hindutva-secularism binary.
A rejected symbol 

The first position is sociological. The so-called ‘Muslim rule’ of Aurangzeb did not have any direct impact on the lives of Muslims. Although we lack any reliable statistical information about the socio-economic status of 

Muslims in the 17th century, various historical studies show that the common Muslims, especially the Pasmandas, were poor, marginalized, and socially backward. It is now natural for these subaltern Muslims to give little importance to Aurangzeb’s legacy, especially to his political moves and imperial policies.

There is also a religious argument. We must remember that the decline of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb’s death was not seen entirely in political terms. The ulama of the 18th century gave a powerful religious interpretation to explain the gradual deterioration of Muslim power. It was argued that the status and prestige of Muslims in India (and elsewhere) were weakened because Muslims had given up the ‘true path of Islam’. 

Aurangzeb did not find any place in this quest for Islamic revival.
A failed ruler
The second position on Aurangzeb is purely political. The All-India Muslim League did not find Aurangzeb a suitable figure for its politics of representation in colonial India. At its Amritsar session in 1908, Syed Ali Imam made a very powerful argument on Indian Muslim history in his presidential address.

 About Us    https://bit.ly/3GUPFOa  
Contact: +919942258153               kvk.subadhra@gmail.com                
Thank You Very Much for Sharing YourValuable Thoughts 

https://6d573c5e7d35btg0v-tlu8s1f5.hop.clickbank.net