INSTEAD OF WATCHING NETFLIX TONIGHT.
Spend 1 hour with this.
Claude AI FULL COURSE that teaches you how to BUILD and AUTOMATE anything.
The people who watch this tonight will wake up tomorrow with a new skill.
Watch it and Bookmark it now.
@RCBTweets Please Sign Steve Smith this Auction, its our only chance to see the two greatest ever batters to play with each other, Smudgey X Cheeku would bang, please
JosD92, whoever you are, wherever you're from, and whichever team or player you support โย you have my respect.
A thread of his legendary messages. โฌ๏ธ
This is all true;
Aurangzeb killed his own brothers and imprisoned his father, but so did Ashoka, who killed his brothers to ascend the throne. Every ruler has blood on their hands, including Sambhaji Maharaj, who imprisoned his own brother Raja Ram and even his stepmother. Itโs crucial to recognize that every ruler, regardless of their empire, is a product of their time, shaped by power struggles and personal ambition.
Aurangzeb, like many rulers, didnโt act out of values but a desire to sustain his empire and his religion, just as Shivaji Maharaj did for the Maratha Empire. In fact, Shivaji himself signed the Treaty of Purandar in 1665, which resulted in his son Sambhaji working under Aurangzeb as a Mansabdar. There was no noble ideal at play just pragmatism in a world where power was the ultimate goal. Aurangzeb may have been cruel, but so was Sambhaji, especially when his army committed atrocities like the rape of Portuguese Christian women. Every ruler, it seems, has blood on their hands.
Sambhaji, in fact, did tie up with the Mughals and even revolted against his own father at one point. It's essential to understand that historical figures like Sambhaji and Shivaji Maharaj are often confused in popular narratives. Many are reading Chattrapati Sambhaji for Shivaji Maharaj.
Rana Sanga too, lost an eye, a hand, and a leg in battle, highlighting that fratricidal wars were commonplace when kingdoms were at stake. In such times, the kingdom was the reward for bloodshed.
Aurangzeb is often portrayed as a villain, akin to Hitler, but this oversimplified view overlooks his more nuanced legacy. While itโs true that he destroyed some temples, he also issued orders to protect others, granted land and stipends to Brahmins, and his actions reflect a complex and contradictory figure. Critics often focus on the restrictions he imposed on festivals like Holi, but they tend to overlook the fact that he consulted Hindu ascetics on health issues and employed more Hindus in his administration than any other Mughal ruler. These actions show that Aurangzeb was not a straightforward figure of religious intolerance. His actions, though controversial, cannot be solely understood through the lens of religious hate.
Aurangzebโs reign was in a premodern context, where violence and state control were commonplace, and the idea of religious tolerance was far different from what we expect today. Hindus, in fact, fared well in Aurangzebโs massive bureaucracy, with ample employment and advancement opportunities. Aurangzeb even went so far as to protect non-Muslim leaders and institutions, offering them the status of dhimmis, entitled to state defense. His policies toward temples were contradictory balancing protection with destruction but his ultimate goal seemed to be ensuring justice and stability throughout the Mughal Empire.
For instance, Aurangzeb issued a farman confirming a land grant for the Umanand Temple in Guwahati, Assam, allowing it to collect revenue. In 1680, he further directed measures to support such religious institutions. However, Aurangzebโs recall of land grants to Hindus, in favor of Muslims, was likely a concession to the ulama. Yet, in many regions like Bengal, the policy was not strictly enforced, and more land was granted to Hindus than ever before, demonstrating that his policies were not as rigid as often portrayed.
1/2