Representation of History in Truschke's Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth and

Dryden's Aurangzeb: A Tragedy

ABSTRACT

Literature certainly has its roots in history is corroborated by various writings of the world literature.
As Foucault states that "History is a text by itself," and in this regard, postmodern historiography is
the perception of history in consonance with our stance and the postmodern lies on the notion that
"truth is what you make it". According to Linda Hutcheon, historiographic metafiction are "those
well-known and popular novels which are both intensely self-reflexive and yet paradoxically also lay
claim to historical events and personages" (Hutcheon,1988) . If historical and literary works
"Aurangzeb:The Man and The Myth" by Audrey Truschke and "Aurang-Zebe A Tragedy" by John
Dryden are compared by applying postmodern historiography ,so many interpretations or aspects of
the history regarding Aurangzeb's life and all his policies can be found . Being a monarch ,
Aurangzeb had been berated as an orthodox Muslim who took derogatory steps against non-
Muslim communities of the subcontinent. He reinstated tax on non-Muslims and stimulated
biasness against Hindus by keeping them away from high administrative posts and proselytized
them to accept Islam .This sort of views have been heavily politicized in the government approved
textbooks in schools and colleges across post partition India (i.e. after 1947). These are the
fabrications against one of the pre-eminent rulers of India . This study centres on the comparative
way in which Audrey Truschke attempts to demystify the fictitious image of Aurangzeb and that
image which is evinced by Dryden in his drama "Aurang-Zebe A Tragedy". The primary objective of
this study is how does Truschke deconstruct the stereotypical representation of Aurangzeb in
Indian history a how does she vindicate her assertions and how do Dryden's and Truschke's
frame of mind contrast with each other in portraying an image of historical figure , Aurangzebe ?
This project incorporates both historiographic metafiction and play "Aurangzeb:The Man and The
Myth" and "Aurang-Zebe A Tragedy" respectively as a primary source of data and the books
written by other historians and articles as secondary source of data . The close reading and textual
analysis of these books have yielded findings which have been interpreted in the parameters of
comparative study of literary work and historiographic metafiction . Postmodernism historiography,
is applied to understand the past in the present because it emphasizes subjective interpretation in
the research of meanings of text , art , culture and thinking . The results reveal that all the sham
facts about Aurangzeb are underlined by staunch Hindus, some biased Muslims and Dryden also
distorted the tangible facts and attached stereotypes to "Brown , Muslim and Asian ruler". Positive
aspects are veiled to devalue the Muslims and Mughal Emperor and distorted facts are painted on
the canvas of history and literature . Truschke backs her claims with the reliable references of other
historians to make them authentic . Truschke's historiographic metafiction does foregrounds her
cognizant attempt to present the Aurangzeb not as a bad emperor through artistic blend of content
and form .
 INTRODUCTION

Literature and history are so intertwined with one  another that literature is always a medium to
appropriate historical events of different eras. A historian records facts about past where as a literary
artist brilliantly fuse historical facts with elements of fiction shaping different literary genres like
drama, poetry, novels etc. As Hutcheon (1988) states that history's problem is verification, while
literature's is veracity while reporting a true version of history, historians should instead focus on a
concepts of history.  History is always a resource material for literary artists like playwrights as they
make use of names and popular speeches of emperors, princes and political heroes in their history
plays . The term "Historiography" is grounded on the notion that how do we construe the history.
According to Steven Best "good historiography requires hermeneutical sensitivity, empathetic and
imaginative reconstruction, and reflexive methodological sophistication" (Best,1995,P.235) .
Postmodernism holds a plurality of truths, and history is no longer monolithic and objective. From
the perspective of postmodernism , version of history is subjective in nature bacuase nobody
knows exactly what happened in the past so history is transcribed in consonance with the stance of
historian . The term "Historiographic metafiction" was coined by literary theorist Linda Hutcheon
which means "best be reserved to describe fiction that is at once metafictional and historical in its
echoes of the text and context of the past" (Hutcheon,1988,p.120) . It is one of the form of
postmodern novel . Linda Hutcheon sees "historiographic metafiction" as a way to rewrite history
in postmodern fiction. Hutcheon explains historiographic metafiction are "those well-known and
popular novels which are both intensely self-reflexive and yet paradoxically also lay claim to
historical events and personages"(Hutcheon,1988,p.05). As stated by Waugh, Historiographic
metafiction "attempts to demarginalize the literary through confrontation with the historical , and
it does so both thematically and formally"[CITATION Pat84 \p 289 \l 2057 ] . Steven Best and
Linda Hutcheon , the two philosophers and visionaries promulgated the postulates of postmodern
historiographic metafiction with the reference of prominent critics like Foucault and proponent
of Hermeneutics theory , Habermas.

"Foucault demonstrates a postmodern sensibility that the truth is a perspective-laden

construction, that the historian does not have an unmediated access to historical reality, that
history is a text" (Best, 1995, p. 210-211). A feature of the postmodernist discourse is self-
reflectivity. Metafiction is a literary subgenre which is self-reflective, self-criticizing, and inclined
to address its readers that they are reading a work of art. In addition, Patricia Waugh defines it as a
kind of inherent nature in all novels which "self-consciously and systematically ddraws attention
to its status as an artefact in order to pose question about the relationship between fiction and
reality" (Waugh,1984, p. 2). Hutcheon believes that the interplay of the historiographic and the
metafictional contributes to the inability to claim "both 'authentic' representation and 'inauthentic'
copy alike" and she further suggests "that to re-write or to re-present the past in any literary piece
and in history is, in both cases, to open it up to the present, to prevent it from being conclusive and
teleological" (Hutcheon,1988) .

This research is intended to scrutinize comparative analysis concerning "Aurangzeb : The Man
and The Myth" by Audrey Truschke and "AURANG-ZEBE A TRAGEDY" by John Dryden through
postmodern historiographic lens . "Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court" and
"Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth" are the noteworthy works penned by Truschke . Her
expertise are in Middle Eastern , South Asian and African Studies . She has emerged in
international circle of history as historian who has written about Indo-Pak subcontinent history
especially of Mughal era by employing ground-breaking techniques .

"Aurangzeb :The Man and The Myth" is a biography of sixth Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir
in which she debunks all the delusions about Aurangzeb and epitomizes him as a judicious and
meticulous person and great Emperor as well who knows how to administrate the state affairs
along with rectitude and parity . Aurangzeb reign comprises of nearly 50 years ( 1658-1707) .
Aurangzeb and Akbar were two most influential emperors of Indo-Pak sub-continent . Akbar
believed in the unity of nation . He had liberal views and he was in favour to promote religious
liberty so at that time all the comunities were permitted to execute their religious rites . He had
also abolished Jizya on non-Muslims . Contrarily, Aurangzeb enforced Islamic reforms in the
Mughal state and tried his best to make subcontinent an Islamic and welfare state and reinstated
Jizya, the jizyah was primarily a tax that was levied on the non-Muslim populace for their
fortification . "After his second (and formal) coronation on June 5, 1659, he issued orders which
were calculated to satisfy orthodoxy. He appointed censors of public morals in all important cities
to enforce Islamic law, and he tried to put down such practices as drinking, gambling and
prostitution.He forbade the cultivation of narcotics throughout the empire and these things were
popular and used frequently among Hindus" (Ikram, 1964). He was regarded as a cultural dolt and
many Hindus considered him a "Brutal Oppressor of Hindus" ("A much- maligned Mughal", 2017).
Truschke's historiographic metafiction introduces us to the reformist aspects of the Aurangzeb's
reign and about his strategies regarding other religions or communities live in the sub-continent
which are entirely contradictory to the previous narratives composed by especially Hindu historians .
She classified his 50 years rule under 3 major sections that broadly succinct the mystery of
Aurangzeb ; one is royal beauracracy , second why does he consider himself morally superior
and last section is about his policies regarding other religions while in Dryden's play some facts
about Aurangzeb and history are being distorted completely .  The plot is loosely based on a
contemporary account of the struggle between the four sons of Shah Jahan, the fifth Mughal
Emperor, for the succession to the throne. The hero is a figure of exemplary rationality, virtue, and
patience whose stepmother lusts after him and whose father pursues the woman with whom
Aureng-Zebe is himself in love. Dryden evinces a deeply disturbing awareness of the anarchy and
impotence which threaten every aspect of human life, emotional, moral, and political. 
Indian Hindu historians made a false propaganda against him and gave him titles like
"zealous and religious bigot" and conservative Muslim who took offensive step against non-
Muslim communities especially Hindus , destroyed their temples and ordered mass murder of
Hindus . He banned the festival of Holy , music and enacted Sharia law . In the eyes of
Jawaharlal Nehru "Aurangzeb was too Muslim to rule India" (Nehru,1946) . Previous Mughal
emperors especially Akbar also celebrated Holy to show the unity with Hindus and music was very
old tradition of Mughal family but in Aurangzeb's reign many musicians became unemployed
but as Truschke defended Aurangzeb "In Aurangzeb's eyes Islamic teachings and the Mughal
tradition enjoined him to protect Hindu temples , pilgrimage destinations and holy men"
(Truschke, 2017) . She takes benefit of abundant historical references to paint a picture of the
security of temples . For Truschke, his actions were in harmony with statesmanship and had firm
religious motives for the demolition of temples . He demolished temples because some extremist
Brahmins were preaching false teachings of the scriptures and just pouring their energies in
evoking Anti-Muslim sentiments so there was high risk of anarchy . It is a religious motive for
the destruction of temples and this sort of allegations are debunked by Truschke . In 1675, Ninth
Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur was also assassinated on the instruction of Aurangzeb and this led to
Sikh- Mughal conflict (Khalid, 2017). In spite of irrepressible opposition and malignance of
Hindus against his actions , he had contributed alot in the geographical expansion of the Mughal
Empire .Various historians penned different standpoints about Aurangzeb. Some contemporary
writers acknowledged him as a pious and meticulous emperor who handles every matter
efficiently while some biased historians and hindu devotees produced atrocious narrative about
him . R.C Mujumdar writes in his book: "Undaunted bravery, grim tenacity of purpose, and ceaseless
activity were some of his prominent qualities. His military campaigns gave sufficient proof of
his unusual courage, and the manner in which he baffled the intrigues of his enemies shows
him to have been a past master of diplomacy and statecraft. His memory was wonderful, and
his industry indefatigable" (Mujumdar,1958) . It is the crux of postmodernism historiography,
interpretation of history always build upon our perspective, so perception of history can
certainly not be same. Hutcheon moves on to present the postmodern view that reality is created by
"cultural representations". The presentation and distortion of facts and historical events lies in the
domain of comparative analysis of both historical and literary text .

The eighteenth-century concern for lies and falsity postmodern concern for the multiplicity and
dispersion of truth . Postmodern concern of the subjectivity of those who write history . "Two modes
of narrations are used in historic metafiction ; one is multiple point of view and secondly
openly controlling narrator" (Hutcheon, 1988) . In this historical narrative , Audrey uses the
mode of openly controlling narrator in which all the facts about Aurangzeb are narrated by
herself which makes it distinguishable from previous fabricated narrations about Aurangzeb .
Truschke evaluates Aurangzeb not by modern standards but in keeping with traditions and values
of his own time and paints the picture of Aurangzeb as a complex figure whose relationship to Islam
was dynamic , strategic and sometimes contradictory . By applying postmodern theory and
specifically postmodern historiography , I tend to explore the western view point regarding
stereotypical representation of Muslims especially Aurangzebe with the reference of "Aurang-Zebe
A Tragedy" and compare it with "Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth" to identify the difference
between the approaches of Truschke and Dryden and also comparing her views with those
Indian historians who highlighted distorted image of Aurangzeb in front of the world and how
does Truschke defy the previous notions about Aurangzeb ?

Thesis Statement

Historiographic comparative analysis of both Truschke and Dryden's works reflect the politicization
of history and the policies of Aurangzeb . Their ideological responses about Aurangzebe are
contextualized in their specific frame of reference , historical situation , religious and political
background in order to compare and contrast their approaches.

Research Questions

Analysing the conflictual narration in history and literature about the life and legacy of Aurangzeb,

I will try to seek answers to the following questions .

1: How do traditional Indian historians epitomize Aurangzeb as a monster and how does Truschke

deconstruct stereotypical representation of Auranzeb in Indian history ?

2: How does Dryden contribute in the stereotypical representation of Aurangzeb in his play
"Aurangzebe A Tragedy"?

3: How do Dryden and Truschke have contrast in approach regarding construction of Aurangzeb
as historical figure?
Significance and Purpose of Research

This research demystifies various underlying factors which become the reason of historiography
and representation of history in literature . Purpose of this research is tend to explore the unbiased
facts and views about sixth Mughal emperor Aurangzeb , who was highly misrepresented figure
among Mughal emperors and how does representation of history is different in "fiction" and "non-
fiction"? This research theoretically will be useful as the reference for the readers who want to
deepen their historical knowledge in an unbiased manner by exploring real facts about
Aurangzeb . Truschke uses the reference of other historians to back-up her views . This research
practically can be used as a reference for the readers who are interested in learning about
postmodern historiography . How different narratives about one case are compared and how does
history is represented in historical narratives and literature . They may use this analysis in the
review of literature for their research which gives familiarity to previous research and helps
them out to identify the research gap .

Delimitation of Research

This research covers an area of postmodern historiography and its application through comparative

analysis on both literary and historical work so this research lies in the domain of qualitative

research . Although, works under study is of history and literature but after the application of literary

theory i.e. primarily postmodern theory and specifically postmodern historiography, this research is

limited to the literary domain . Due to time and space constraint this research is just limited to one

mughal emperor who was one of the famous or highly misrepresented Mughal . This research is of

literature so it is based on subjective viewpoint about the research topic .The researcher will analyse

how far an idea of subjective interpretation occurs in the comparison of litreray work and

historiographic metafiction and how Truschke debunks the former delusions about Aurangzeb and

how does Dryden present Aurangzebe's character and history of reign in his play .
Literature Review

Literature review contains a brief survey of recent research studies relevant to the subject of my

dissertation in order to provide the readers the background and context of my work . I have tried to

describe as well as critically evaluate the works of other scholars in order to point out relatively

less investigated postmodern historiographic comparative elements in the historical metafictions

and literary work and the unexplored dimensions of comparative analysis of both history and

literature which I tend to take up in my study. Many scholars and researchers gave different

reviews about Aurangzeb as a personality and "Aurangzeb :The Man and The Myth" as a scholarly

work .

Mukhia (2017) states about "Aurangzeb :The Man and The Myth" that in prevailing narratives,

pictorial representation has a vague closeness to the sovereign personality of the subcontinent.This

fundamental idea is floated by Audrey Truschke in her book "Aurangzeb:The Man and The Myth".

Truschke wants to cast the light upon the virtues of man against all those mythologies that has

furled around him, over the past couple of centuries . The historian looks at a ruler's reign as

constantly evolving in interaction with a whole complex array of opposing pulls and pressures –

political, administrative, economic, cultural, religious, factional and so forth. In popular image,

the ruler's single characteristic is given and fixed and that characteristic is the stanch driving force

during his reign. The emperor Aurangzeb was too multifaceted to be reduced to a single

personal/religious identity. Each ruler is faced with multiple, contradictory choices and is obliged

to find an equilibrium among them. It is the present which shapes the past. The political conflicts

of the present demand the casting of images of the past. Aurangzeb wasn't perceived as a

religious zealot in his own time by historians, including several Hindu historians such as Bhim

Sen and Ishwar Das; this image began to grow in the late 18th century and after, finding a firm

traction in the colonial and nationalist historiography of the 20th century .

Mukul (2017) states in his review that a historian i.e. Truschke reiterates the complex and

contested life of the sixth Mughal emperor, keeping away from hagiography or undue
resurrection . Among the Mughal rulers, Babur and Aurangzeb are the most popular in social media

among the supporters of right wing whose ideology that has been working hard for the last three

years to foist Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan as the sole narrative of a country where custom, costume and

customary beliefs change every few kilometres. On social media , anyone holding a divergent view

is quickly labelled as anti-national or aulads (descendants) of Babur and Aurangzeb. Happily aided

by the government, Aurangzeb's name is being vandalized from central vistas . Truschke in this book

"Aurangzeb:The Man and The Myth" never loses sights from fact and figures . Aurangzeb turned

out to be a victim of hostile history which vilified him as a truly abysmal ruler who unfastened the

legacy of his successors by framing his own policies . Truschke recovers Aurangzeb from the

heaps of fiction and lies instead of hagiography . Truschke establishes how other historians viewed

Aurangzeb through the flawed and critical lens, by overstating his religious zeal or devoutness as

reasons why did he turned into an austere puritan and biased emperor . Nehru called him "a bigot and

an austere puritan". Truschke points out that how this portrait of a 'reviled' Emperor is often used

against the Muslims . Her focus is on the fabricated facts about Aurangzeb and she looks at

Aurangzeb's life and his strategies through a neutral lens . Although, he did destroy some Hindu

temples and banned Holi but as she points out, he also donated grants for the maintenance of temples

and liberally donated land to Brahmins . If this review is critically analysed we can notice that all the

condemnations on Aurangzeb is based on his alleged anti-Hindu bias and for a biography that

magnificently recuperates the image of Mughal emperor for contemporary readers.

Sheikh(2018) reassess the "Islamist" policies of the Mughal monarch Aurangzeb Alamgir many of

which were punitive towards Shi-i and millenarian groups than towards Hindus . Gujrat, the

birthplace of Aurangzeb where he spent nineteen months as a governer in his youth . He had an

accquitance with several Gujrati clerics and officials and some of them became close advisors who

helped him out to shape his signature policies .Gujrati politicis played an surprisingly tremendous

role in shaping Aurangzeb as a single indentity and as an emperor . There is a powerful prevalent

narrative that Aurangzeb imposed a narrow-minded and censorious version of Sunni Islam and

persecuted Hindus . Shi'as and others who failed to conform his authoritarian line . From this
outlook, Aurangzeb is seen as the opposite to his great- grandfather Akbar (r.1556-1605) whose

empire is seen as a spacious and a precursor of modern secular India. Sheikh(2018) included the

Katherine Schofield's argument that "while Aurangzeb was tortured by his forbidden love for music,

he did not succeed in restricting music throughout the empire , nor did he really attempt to do so". By

charting Aurangzeb's trials of millenarian leaders throughout his protracted reign, it suggests that the

emperor's desire to introduce a more standardised legal system was at odds with the 'millennial'

nature of his own kingship. The article further suggests we should look more closely at the influence

of regional politics on Mughal policy-making. The fact that Sunni Gujrati clerics acquired a

remarkable intimacy with Aurangzeb, both as prince and emperor, demonstrates how Gujrat's

sectarian disputes and political economy could play out in the imperial court. This article calls

for a realistic reappraisal of the long shadows cast by Aurangzeb's Islamist legalism .

Siddique (2006) states that all the Muslim rulers who ruled over subcontinent , probably no one has

received much condemnation as Aurangzeb . He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was

anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding

high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been

heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition

India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious,

unbiased, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out to falsify those allegations.

For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of

Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not

be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled

for nearly a thousand years. He further stated that no one should accuse Aurangzeb of being

communal mind . In his administration , the state policy was formulated by Hindus and many

Hindus were appointed on higher ranks and Aurangzeb just followed the Sharia which demands

appointing right persons in right positions . On the matter of tax , he has a standpoint that  the per
capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is

his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned .

A glance at the reviews and the articles mentioned above also reveals that Aurangzeb was not a bad

or cruel person rather it is a matter of interpretation of history and writers that how we perceive the

matter and every person . There is also an element of biasness , hatred against Muslims or Mughals

which make it possible to paint their distorted picture in front of the world . Even some Hindu

historians refuse these false allegations against Aurangzeb and his policies .

Theoretical Framework

This research is based on the postmodern historiographic comparative analysis of

"AURANGZEB: The Man and The Myth" and "AURANG-ZEBE A Tragedy" as a primary source of

data and researcher carried out qualitative . It is descriptive , analytical and interpretive in nature

and mode of analysis is textual analysis method . The researcher will assemble the data from

related articles , books and from other sources like internet and find suitable references that can

be related to the subject under investigation . Relevant extracts will be quoted as reference to

support my arguments and assertions . As there is frustrating dearth of literary critical writing

regarding historiographic metafiction of Audrey Truschke , the available opinion in the form of

book reviews and commentaries published in the national and international press will be referred and

will hopefully prove useful . Interviews of Truschke published in magazines and available on web

will definitely help to directly access author's mind and reach at the conclusion .

In this research, researcher will focus on the postmodern historiographic comparative analysis of

the book "AURANGZEB: The Man and The Myth" and "Aurang-Zebe A Tragedy" and paradigm of

this research is hermeneutics . Reality always exists but it can never be truly understand . There

are always some opacities in the understanding of reality while hermeneutics stresses on the

individual understanding of text which varies from individual to individual. It opposes an objective

interpretations of the text . Linda Hutcheon and Steven Best are seen as the most influential critics

in my research . Hebarmas, the proponent of hermeneutics holds a pragmatic model about truth . "It
states that a claim can be true if it can be successfully defended through argumentation within

an intersubjective context" (Best,1995, p.211) . In this research Habermas'pragmatic model of truth

will be applied for the interpretation of history and solid arguments and references will be needed

to defend the standpoint so by applying postulates of postmodernism, historiography metafiction

and hermeneutics , this research will be carried out .

Research Design

This project will be divided into four chapters , excluding the conclusion ,as per following details .

The first chapter is the introductory one . It contains rationale of research i.e. factors which led

me to take up this research . Then follow objectives of the research in the form of research

questions which are to be addressed .

In the second chapter the essential tenets and concepts of postmodernism and historiography will

be highlighted and discussed just to provide the framework in which historiographic

comparative analysis of both historical and literary work will be investigated . Key concepts will

be discussed in the light of the works of eminent theorists .

Chapter third contains the review of literature relevant to my research . In this chapter scholarly

works examining literary works from the perspective of postmodern historiography will be

reviewed which includes books ,dissertations and articles and scholarly reviews and articles on

postmodrrn historiography and articles on the life and policies of Aurangzeb will be critically

analysed .

Chapter four deals with the analysis of the texts by applying theories and to compare the views of

Truschke with John Dryden and other hindu historians Aurangzeb will be discussed as an

influential emperor who had a strong impact on the history of India and he took many steps against

Hindus and other religious communities which became the foremost reason of hatred and malice

against him . Besides this , there were also many other factors which became the reasons of hatred

against not only Aurangzeb but against all Muslims . It also aims to deconstruct the previous
notions or highlight the attached stereotypes with Aurangzeb and notice the difference between

approaches of both writers i.e. Truschke and Dryden and she defends him according to her stance

without any biasness because postmodern perspective implies that version of history and perspective

of person can never be same . Answers of all these questions will be explored in this chapter .

Conclusion

This study based on the postmodern historiographic comparative analysis of historiographic

metafiction and a play has yielded findings and results enough to answer the questions

regarding this synopsis . A critical investigation of the previous researches and the books of other

historians who wrote about the reign of Aurangzeb reveals that some historians and staunch

Hindu devotees presented him as an extremist and unjust ruler due to his policies but

Truschke attempted to potray the picture of Aurangzeb in front of the world in a healthy manner

and contrarily, Dryden tried to present distorted facts about Aurangzeb and history ,over and above

he attached certain stereotypes with historical characters being a Muslim, brown and Asian people ,

Viewed from postmodern historiographic's lens perception of history and views of people can

never be same . There is always a conflict in the assessments of people and Habermas' pragmatic

model of truth states that "a claim can be true if it can be successfully defended through

argumentation within an intersubjective context" (Best,1995, p.211) . So all the claims of

Truschke are endorsed with argumentation and with the proper reference of books of other

historians to retain the validity of the claims about Auranzeb .To put it in succinctly , we can say

that most of the allegations on Aurangzeb are fabricated and entirely opposite to his intentions .

There is a colossal difference between the presentation of history through historical book and literary

work . Those allegations which are presented by Dryden and other historians are the upshot of

biasness , hatred and jealousy against Muslims and partition wrath and as a result some extremist

historians and educational policy makers educate the Hindus and other non muslims in a way that

they consider Muslim as their worst enemies who always have inequitable behaviour towards them .
 Biliography

Hutcheon, L. (1988). The Poetics of postmodernism:History , Theory , Fiction. New York:

Routledge.

Waugh, P. (1984). Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self Conscious Fiction . London :
Methuen.

Best, S. (1996). The Politics of Historical Vision. New York and London: The Guilford Press .

Trusckey, A. (2017). "Aurangzeb : The Man and The Myth".New York : Penguin Random House.

Khalid, H. (2017, January 28). The tale of Guru Tegh Bahadur and Aurangzeb embodies
simplification of Sikh Mughal History . Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com/news/1311274.

"A much-maligned Mughal" (2017, April 05). Retrieved from https://aeon.co/essays/the-great-

aurangzeb-is-everybodys-least-favourite-mughal.

Nehru, P. J. (1946). Discovery of India. New York: John Day Company.

Ikram , S.M. (1964).Aurangzeb . In A.T. Embree(Ed.) , Muslim Civilization in India. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Mujumdar, R.C., Datta K., & Raychaudhuri, H. C (1958). The Advance History of India

(2nd ed.).New York: Macmillan & co

Mukhia, H. (2017, March 04).A Portrait of Aurangzeb More Complex than Hindutva's Political

Project Will Admit . Retrieved from https://thewire.in/books/aurangzeb-audrey-truschke-

review.
Mukul , A. (2017, March 04) . Aurangzeb, a stranger no more . Retrieved from

https://www.thehindu.com/books/books-reviews/aurangzeb-a-stranger-no-

more/article17408332.ece.

Sheikh,S .(2018) . Aurangzeb as seen from Gujarat: Shi'i and Millenarian Challenges to Mughal

Sovereignty . Journal Royal Asiatic Society ,28(3) , 558-581 . Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186318000135.

Siddique, H. ( 2017,September10) . Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb : Bad Ruler or Bad History ?.

Retrieved from https://www.bismikaallahuma.org/history/mughal-emperor-aurangzeb-bad-

ruler-bad-history/ .