History owes to none but to time and people of the time.
The biases make the worst historians. Ironically biases have been finding awards for ages. Nothing is different in the time of now. We have many eminent historians around us who seem to be sculptures sculpted out of biases coated in colonial hues: Mughals, British, and more.
One such Historian from the current time is Audrey Truschke, a recruit of Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey.
People may wonder that why she is being pointed as a biased crusader & a fake Historian.
The answer lies in her own works. If it has to be put in one line, “she spends time, research and efforts only to glorify everything which would affect glory to India.” It happens often that the words of professional academics are taken at face value and unfortunately her biases are shaping up into mainstream narrative.
Of all the most cynical it turns out when she begins to perform like a Darbari of Aurangzeb who himself won’t have loved the way Audrey has taken up the PR exercise for the Sufi Emperor posthumously. She always claims about the enormity of Aurangzeb and how he did more good to Hindus than doing atrocities on them.
Her one statement became quite famous that, “Aurangzeb protected more Hindu Temples than destroying them.” Even if this statement is to be considered true for a while, will any judiciary use the same logic to spare a murderer who has committed only one murder ever? Audrey would be surprised to know that not many from the Mughal Fan club would be able to digest what she states in respect to Aurangzeb.
The Mughal records state that Aurangzeb’s policy saw the demolition of Hindu Temples as the most important objective. Dara Shukoh had presented Keshava Rai Temple of Mathura with carved railings which the great Sufi Aurangzeb ordered to be removed on October 13, 1666. He had observed:
In the religion of the Musalmans it is improper even to look at a Temple’, and that it was unbecoming of a Muslim to act like Dara ShukohUmurat-i-Hazur Kishwar-Kashai/ October 13, 1666
Following this soon the Kalka Temple of Delhi was destroyed by Aurangzeb (Source: Siyah Waqa’i-Darbar, September 3, 1667, & Siyah Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, 12 September 1667).
Mirza Raja Jai Singh of Amber passed away in 1669. On April 9, 1969, Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of temples and gurukuls throughout the empire. He had also ordered for the complete banning of Puja Samskaras (Source: Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri)
Soon after these orders, the great Temple of Keshava Rai in Mathura was demolished in January 1670) (Source: Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri, p. 95-96, Translation by J.N. Sarkar). A large Mosque was erected at this place. and in its place, a lofty mosque was erected. As per the author of Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri, the murtis were carried to Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque built by Begum Sahiba, so that they could be continually trodden upon by the Musalmans, and the name of the ancient sacred town Mathura was changed to Islamabad.
Below is a painting depicting that what must have happened:
The bigotry of the Sufi Aurangzeb did not stop there. He demolished the sacred Temple of Vishwanath at Varanasi (Source: Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri, p. 88) and of Somanatha.
Likewise, Aurangzeb kept demolishing Hindu Temples and the pieces of evidence flow from the Mughal writings themselves. He destroyed the great temples of Mewar, Marwar, including two hundred other Temples in the environs of Udaipur and many more. In Chittor he ordered the demolition of more than five dozen of Temples which included the finest works of Kumbha’s time and even earlier. Only from Marwar several cart-loads of Murtis were brought which were cast in the courtyard and under the steps of Jama Masjid (Source: (Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri, p. 175, Translation: J.N. Sarkar).
And look at what kind of comical statements the historian passes. It seems that their irks are hell-bent to make historians the most mistrusted professionals ever.
June 1681, Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of the highly Jagannath Temple in Puri (Source: Siyaha Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i- Mu‘alla, June 1, 1681). September 1682, The Bindu-Madhav Temple in Varanasi was demolished as per the Aurangzeb’s orders (Source: Siyaha Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, September 13, 1682).
Interestingly, on September 1, 1681, his rebel son Akbar joined Chhatrapati Shivaji’s son, Shambhaji. This had not only created problems for Aurangzeb but he was badly furious. He was travelling to Deccan then. He ordered that all the temples on the way should be destroyed (Source: Siyaha Akhbarat-i-Darbar, September 21, 1681). Aurangzeb kept ordering the destruction of temples almost till the time he died. We find him ordering the destruction of Pandharpur Temple and sending butcher camp to slaughter the cows of Gowshala in the precinct (Source: Akhbarat 49-7).
Following the sayings of the Holy Qur’an, Aurangzeb reimposed Jizyah on the Hindus on April 2, 1679 (Source: Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri, p. 175, Translation: J.N. Sarkar). Interestingly he had exempted Muslims from paying Zakat ( Source: Siyaha Akhbart-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, April 16, 1667). Below is the list of a few bans and rules brought by Sufi Emperor Aurangzeb:
- Atishbazi thereby restricting Diwali (Source: Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, April 9, 1667).
- Replacement of Hindu officials by Muslims to enhance latter’s welfare & glory of Islam (Source: Siyaha Akhbarat Darbar Mu’alla, May 30, 1667 ).
- Gathering of the Hindus at religious shrines (Source: Siyaha Waqai Darbar, September 26, 1667).
- Travelling in Palkis, or riding elephants and Arab-Iraqi horses, as Hindus should not carry themselves with the same dignity as the Muslims (Source:).
- He brought the rules to convert Hindus by persuasion, coercion or by offering Qanungo and to honor the converts in the open Court (Source: Akhbarat, November 15, 1680; June 5, 1681; Siyaha Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, May 16, 1681; Siyaha Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, June 17, 1681). Directions were that a Hindu male be given Rupees 4 and a Hindu female Rupees 2 on conversion (Source: Siyaha Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i- Mu‘alla, Julus, April 7, 1685). “Continue giving liberally”, Aurangzeb had ordered when he was told that the Faujdar of Bithur, Shaikh Abdul Momin, had converted more than a hundred Hindus and had given them cash and dresses of honor (Source: Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, April 11, 1667).
But we have our Scholars like Audrey coming in defence of bigot Aurangzeb which is best expressed by the own writings of Mughals. Aurangzeb wasn’t shy to record these instances as they were moments of pride for him. His ultimate motto was the establishment of the Islamic State.
In the time of now, any defence of Aurangzeb is no different than fighting to validate the acts of Adolf Hitler. It only reflects upon the fact that Audrey has no sensitivity for Hindus or perhaps she has grown old only with hate injected. It is quite evident from the fact that what she is doing is only an act of showing the wrong history. Not something factual even a bit.
So what exactly is the intention of Audrey Truschke?
Anyone who claims to have researched Aurangzeb would know the complete details of Fatawa-e-Alamgiri. It had provisions for slavery (including sex slavery ) as mentioned under (source: Fatawa i-Alamgiri, Sheikh Nizam, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 6 vols):
- The right of Muslims to purchase and own slaves
- Muslim man’s right to have sex with slave girl he owns or owned by another Muslim (with master’s consent).
- No inheritance rights for slaves.
- The testimony of all slaves was inadmissible in a court of law.
- Slaves require permission of the master before they can marry
- An unmarried Muslim may marry a slave he owns but a Muslim married to a Muslim woman may not marry a slave
- Conditions under which the slaves may be emancipated partially or fully
I wonder that how a man or woman or earth can ever be an advocate from misogynists and slavery supporting an emperor like Sufi Aurangzeb? In my opinion, it is the biggest low for Audrey.
Well, it is not only about romanticizing one of the biggest religious bigots ever but Audrey’s biases become way more evident when she gets into misquoting and passing wrong information about Hindu Shastras. While she cozies the character of Aurangzeb, she has never stopped to reflect wrongly how Mahabharata and Ramayana have been books of misogyny, unethical acts and more. She goes on to compare Nirbhaya’s situation with that of “Draupadi” and mentions that how perhaps India has not changed in ages?
She fails to understand the character of Draupadi and many other in Mahabharata, but it is hilarious how sex-slavery supporter Aurangzeb appeared like a hero to her. The wrongdoers in each case, whether it was Nirbahaya or Asifa were brutal marauders; no less than filthy Aurangzeb. It is disgusting that Rutgers University has to defend such a fake Hindu-hating scholar day and night.
While she demonizes every Hindu Shastras, she is quite vocal about “how Hinduism is good and Hindutva bad.” But by doing so does she not appear a hypocrite of the highest order? I mean, how can she demonize all Hindu Shastras and then claim that “Hinduism” is good? She even goes on to talk that how no manuscripts of Mahabharata are the same but would never tell you about decades of versions of the Holy Qur’an. Will she ever stand with Wasim Rizvi, who has called for the removal of hateful verses from the Qur’an? Will she call out the Maulvis who are passing fatwas to have him killed? Needless to say but Osama Bin Laden did cite from the Holy Book while declaring the Jihad against the United States of America. Why such biases? There have been multiple killings in the name of Muhammad, the Qur’an and Allah. All the top terrorist organisations recognized by international agencies do swear by Allah and Qur’an. But will she ever speak? Can she find us a single terrorist organisation that cites Bhagwad Gita or Mahabharata while assaulting people? Will she ever tell that “Muslims need to launch their own ‘Not in my name’ protests against cartoon beheadings?”
On the other hand, she always keeps misinforming people that Hindutva. According to Audrey, ” The Hindutva was born in the era of fascism when Europe witnessed the rise of Hitler and Mussolini.” How misinformed Associate Professor does Rutgers University recruits?
Interestingly, Hitler was three years old and Mussolini nine years old when the term Hindutva was coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892.
Her understanding of Hindutva is highly flawed and she pointlessly keeps vilifying Savarkar, Golwalkar etc. Perhaps she is not aware of the scenarios which were popping in the early twentieth century in India. She needs to be told how Hindu Genocide was planned during the Mopllah riots, how an Islamic Invasion over India was planned during the Khilafat Movement and why the idea of “Hindutva” evolved a bit differently. It is indeed a disgusting situation to see someone teaching the oppressed ones “how not to call out oppression and keep turning more victims.”
It was a couple of years back when I for the first time countered her nasty views about Hindutva, but I see no growth in merit from her side. I did corroborate the thorough understanding of “Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva” in the essay Hindu Accepts, Hindutva Resists.
It is high time that the west and its scholars stay away from summonsing Indians. While white supremacist, Islamic State sympathisers set a hawkeye to jeopardize Indian interests every possible way we have supplied vaccines to a large chunk of the globe. We, the hunted ones, are out there to write our tales and hunters must vanish now.
Aabhas Maldahiyar A self-professed Ex-Marxist, a practising architect and author of two fiction books— ‘Restart-An Architect’s Journey to the Parliament House’ and ‘Crossing the Line’ inspired by Marxist ideology.
His latest book #ModiAgain buy at https://garudabooks.com/modi-again-1copy
This article was first published on Kreately. We have republished it with her kind permission.
Disclaimer: Aabhas Maldahiyar is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. He carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing images utilised within the text. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by him, and neither The Australia Today News nor its partners assume any responsibility for them.