Talk:Aurangzeb

Guru Tegh Bahadur

I think its important to mention the execution of Sikh guru, Guru Teg Bahadur, as Several Reliable sources mention that Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed on the orders of Aurangzeb as below

1. The Routledge handbook of religion and security
   — Seiple, Chris (2013). The Routledge handbook of religion and security. New York: Routledge. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-415-66744-9.

2. 
   — Pashaura Singh; Louis E. Fenech (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies. Oxford University Press. pp. 236–238. ISBN 978-0-19-969930-8. Archived from the original on 4 May 2019. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

3. 
   — Fenech, Louis E. (2001). "Martyrdom and the Execution of Guru Arjan in Early Sikh Sources". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 121 (1). American Oriental Society: 20–31. doi:10.2307/606726. JSTOR 606726.

4. 
   — Fenech, Louis E. (1997). "Martyrdom and the Sikh Tradition". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 117 (4). American Oriental Society: 623–642. doi:10.2307/606445. JSTOR 606445.

5. 
   — McLeod, Hew (1999). "Sikhs and Muslims in the Punjab". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 22 (sup001). Taylor & Francis: 155–165. doi:10.1080/00856408708723379. ISSN 0085-6401.

   RogerYg (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

I want to restore previous sourced edit & revert good faith edit for the better condition of this page Aryan330 (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear what changes you wish to see in the article. Please be specific when making an edit request. RegentsPark (comment) 09:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark I want to revert a edit by a user who said "Aurangzeb is considered as one of the greatest rulers In Indian history" by removing the statement"he was considered as one of the greatest muslims kings"which had no base neither no evidence provided by editer..

The Statement "one of the greatest rulers In Indian history" requires praising of many renowned historians & he should have done great thing which were unmatchable in past!

Putting one of the greatest to anyone is simply distortion.

& I also want to correct some words which were removed like "brutality" which is common in historical figures & we simply can't remove it . that's it Aryan330 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: I see that the text was added by a sock in this diff. Restoring the para that was changed by that sock. If you want to add anything else, you'll need to seek consensus. RegentsPark (comment) 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark see this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1163294910

The term "Brutally" was very common in medival history when the opponent was executed with extreme torture,this word I commonly used!

Almost all historian used this term for that incident that word should not be removed as done by a user recently. Aryan330 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It is also mentioned that he found guilty!

There was no record,none of the renowned historian mentioned about that he was found guilty & he had done murder or voilance.I think we should follow jadunath sarkar's work for this as he invested more about the reign of Aurangzeb & according to him only after when Sambhaji refused to surrender his kingdom he was executed brutality.there was no other reason to it. Aryan330 (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

We typically don't use words such as "Brutally" on Wikipedia as it violates WP:NPOV.

Also I believe you are referring to the statement

"In 1689, the second Maratha Chhatrapati (King) Sambhaji was executed by Aurangzeb. In a sham trial, he was found guilty of murder and violence, atrocities against the Muslims of Burhanpur and Bahadurpur in Berar by Marathas under his command."

I see nothing wrong with this statement. It states the exact reason why the Mughals executed Sambhaji. SKAG123 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 I don't want your view for this as you said "I don't see anything wrong in this statement" I just want that what Histrorians said about this!

None of the,I repeat none of the renowned historian mentioned that this was the reason for his execution including Jadunath Sarkar whome we consider most authentic when it comes to history of Aurangzeb.

& Another how anyone found to be guilty as there was no court system in those days!

Read the history first,don't make fire in sky Aryan330 (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Execution of Sambhaji has been debated by Historians as Mughal and Maratha accounts offer vastly different explanations. However this particular statements does NOT talk about the exact reason why Shambhaji was executed. talks about the reason or justification the Mughals gave as to why they did it (This may or may not be correct) . The Mughals saw Shambaji as guilty of "murder and violence, atrocities against the Muslims of Burhanpur and Bahadurpur." This does not necessarily mean it is true, However this is the reasoning given by Mughal Sources as per the multiple sources cited in the section.

Although, modern court systems did not exist back then, Individuals could still be found guilty by the King or other officials, epically war prisoners. SKAG123 (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 still you are not getting my point.

jadunath sarkar's work is entirely Based on persion sources for whome Mughal sources were primary.

I don't know to which source you are referring as "Mughal source"? As if anything is present in Mughal sources it's impossible that Jadunath Sarkar doesn't mentioned it!

& I am saying again "none of the renowned historian mentioned about this incidents"..even the source which marked on that statement only stated that Sambhaji's forces committed atrocities in Burhanpur which itself controversial as multiple historians have multiple views regarding this! But even that source doesn't mentioned that this was the reason thats why Sambhaji executed!you can see on that respective page.

Conclusion:- The Atrocities were committed or not at Burhanpur is debatable & controversial & with different views,

But the statement " he found guilty for that & that was the reason he was executed is not mentioned in any source let it be Mughal or Maratha!"

The reason was common from both sides:- "He was executed because he didn't Surrendered his Kingdom"

You can see this reason present in 1. Jadunath Sarkar(mughal point of view)

2. sardesai(mughal point of view)

3. Kamal gokhle(Maratha point of view)

& Many other sources also said same!

So if the reason is clear & supported by many renowned historians & had base of both Mughal & Maratha point of view then it should be placed on there!

It's better if you yourself edit this.

Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Please state the exact statement from Jadunath Sarkar's work or any other reliable source that directly contradicts the statement presented in the cited sources. SKAG123 (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 From Jadunath Sarkar's "House of Shivaji" which he taken from mughal court historian Khafi khan :- "That proud man,from his high spirit,gave up taking any food from that day onwards.his guard urgued him in vain,and he fasted for some days,at last that case was reported to Emperor,by his order shambha was taken taken to the place of execution.

(There is no mention of any Burhanpur Story)

Sardesai also said same

Both of them said that he was asked to surrender his forts.. Aryan330 (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Maratha Accounts are not mentioned in this article as it is about Aurangzeb not about the Maratha Empire or Sambhaji, therefore Maratha accounts are not necessary. SKAG123 (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 so In that way,we have to remove mughal sources from Sambhaji's & other Maratha rulers page.right? Aryan330 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That does not mention a reasoning why the execution was held

It only talks about Sambhaji’s fasting

There are two cited sources that support the statement written in the article. You need a reliable source that DIRECTLY contradicts the them in order to make any changes

The execution was ordered by Aurangzeb therefore his reasoning for it is mentioned. Others are not necessary here. We have a page dedicated to Sambhaji that talks about it in detail. SKAG123 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 I don't know how you are thinking?

I mean that the statement "he was found guilty for his atrocities at Burhanpur & that's why he was executed" is not present in any comtampory source,simple!

due to his fasting and because he refused to surrender his kingdom, Aurangzeb ordered to execute him..

That statement clearly saying that when he started fasting

& This was said by khafi khan,now if Khafi Khan is not considered as Mughal point of view & atleast his views are not recommended here then there is no point to discuss it.

Even after getting the point you are repeating those sentences which have no mean!

Which 2 sources said that?

The source which marked there itself doesn't clearly mentioned it by saying that was the exact reason.

I suppose you have a good faith & there is no point to discussion Aryan330 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Jadunath Sarkar mentions that Khafi Khan states Sambhaji's fasting. It does not state the specific reason behind his execution. You can not assume a reason for execution unless Sarkar directly states one as that would be original research, which is not allowed.

Both sources cited DIRECTLY mention a reason why the Mughals Executed Sambhaji.

The sources cited:

"These tasks accomplished, Aurangzeb sent an army to find and punish Shambuji for his depredations in Khandesh. The Maratha king was discovered and captured in 1688 and brought to Aurangzeb for punishment, which was to be hacked to death and fed to dogs. "

Source: A History of India by Burton Stein (2002)

"A panel of ulema sentenced him [Sambhaji] to death for having slain and captured good Muslims."

Source: The Mughal Empire, Part 1, Volume 5 by John F. Richards (1996)

As I have said, you need to provide reliable sources that contradict these statements and explain why in order to make any changes. SKAG123 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 Those both are one sided sources without any comtampory source,it can be fictional!

See first source which says Sambhaji was captured in 1688,I can show you more than 10 sources which says Sambhaji was captured in 1689.

John f Richards taken from where that ulema sentenced him death?

If he was must punished then why had Aurangzeb said that he will be released after surrender of his forts?

These nonsense information that he committed atrocities in Burhanpur that's why he was punished is pure masala which added later.

Because we can take khafi khans work as comtampory here because he was present at that time!

& Khafi Khan doesn't mentioned that why he was executed then why we are putting there a reason (false) instead leave it by only putting he was executed by emperor!

Simple Aryan330 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we use Reliable Secondary sources.

We usually do not use use primary sources alone as they are often misinterpreted

all primary sources must be interpreted by a reliable secondary source.

This means anything added into the article must be directly stated in the secondary source.

original research or interpreting the source yourself is not allowed on Wikipedia, as this often leads to users misinterpreting a source.

please read WP:RS specifically WP:PRIMARY and WP:HISTRS

also read WP:NOR and become more familiar with Wikipedia’s guidelines. SKAG123 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 What are you saying?

I know what are called as primary sources & what are the secondary!

I didn't even said that we have to use direct work of khafi Khan(primary) I just said to use Jadunath Sarkar's & Sardesai's works(secondary)

You are simply diverting the subject Aryan330 (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to have Jadunath Sarkar's interpretation of the primary source SKAG123 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 I request you to see what I said about that above.

Sarkar provided just what mentioned in Khafi Khan & Persion sources & if there can't be written about that statement then we just have to try to avoid much controversy because neither Khafi Khan mentioned it, neither it was mentioned by Portugese letters, neither English letters nor Maratha source.infact that times traveller manucci also doesn't talked above Sambhaji's Burhanpur atrocities or that was the reason thats why he was executed.

Infact mughal sources also said that the campaign of Burhanpur was leaded by Hambirrao Mohite not Sambhaji!

So there would be much controversy because here you are saying that instead of Maratha Sources we have to use mughal sources & even that you are not accepting mughal sources as true.

What are you trying to say?

as I mentioned earlier,the source which marked at there itself doesn't mentioned that Sambhaji was executed because of that region on that page it's only written that he plundered Burhanpur.

The only source Remaining is john rechards(I haven't read this) but come to know that this book was written in 20th century & due to its pro mughal statements we can't consider it as comtampory source as we consider Jadunath Sarkar's work..

There arr more than 3 sources (by renowned historians including sarkar, Sardesai,Gordon stewards)

which not mentioned that Sambhaji was executed because of atrocities at Burhanpur while only one source john rechards can be mentioned about it(not sure as till now I didn't read that)

& All of these are mughal point of views sources.

Maratha sources says different than all of these.

So if there was controversy in Maratha sources & mughal sources can be tolerated but here the mughal sources itself creating controversy that why that statement should be removed.

& Should be putted as "Sambhaji was executed after torture on the orders of emperor".

Do this yourself otherwise I have to ask admin to be look on this. Aryan330 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide exact quotes from a reliable secondary source that supports the change you want to make.

nothing can be changed until then.

we don’t use original research on Wikipedia SKAG123 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 "That proud man,from his high spirit,gave up taking any food from that day onwards.his guard urgued him in vain,and he fasted for some days,at last that case was reported to Emperor,by his order shambha was taken taken to the place of execution.

(There is no mention of any Burhanpur Story)Aryan330 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You clearly didn’t read WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR. Please read and understand these policies before making it proposing any more edits SKAG123 (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 as I already mentioned I know that what are primary sources as Khafi Khan's work is primary source but Jadunath Sarkar's work is secondary & we can use it here,see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?redirect=no&title=Wikipedia:SECONDARY Aryan330 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the Policies on the page?

Specifically number 2 and 4.

You have only quoted Khafi Khan not Sarkar or any other secondary source interpreting the statement.

State Sarkar‘s (or any other secondary source) interpretation of the quote and explain how it supports the change you want to make

Stein and Richards both state the exact reason why the execution was preformed. Do NOT interpret it yourself. SKAG123 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 Stain doesn't mentioned about it,you can check on that respective page.he just stated that he attacked Burhanpur & sacked it.

No,I didn't quoted from Khafi Khan's work.

you can check it on Jadunath Sarkar's work,it is there.

I am not interpreting myself,you are unable to find the reliable source. For now leave the reason why he was executed, atleast can you find that was sambhaji even present in Burhanpur that time? The statement 'Sambhaji attacked Burhanpur' is itself a controversial statement! As in almost all sources stated that it was Hambirrao Mohitewho led that campaign not Sambhaji & you are saying that he was also executed for that! this statement is completely funny and unconstructive which is not supported by realiable sources.so to making this important claim you should be very confident and have to gather multiple sources which support it. As for now,can you gather atleast more than 3 sources which says Sambhaji attacked Burhanpur and commited atrocities there & that's why he was executed? Go find it.Aryan330 (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Quotes

"These tasks accomplished, Aurangzeb sent an army to find and punish Shambuji for his depredations in Khandesh. The Maratha king was discovered and captured in 1688 and brought to Aurangzeb for punishment, which was to be hacked to death and fed to dogs. "

Source: A History of India by Burton Stein (2002)

"A panel of ulema sentenced him [Sambhaji] to death for having slain and captured good Muslims."

Source: The Mughal Empire, Part 1, Volume 5 by John F. Richards (1996)

both of these sources are from reliable award winning historians.

Also the sentence does not state that Sambhaji attacked Muslims civilians (I agree that is debated) It states the Mughals punished him for it. Many were falsely accused back then.

Your quote was just a direct translations of a primary source. You need a direct statement from Sarkar as to why the execution was done, in the format “Sambhaji was executed for ___ “ or similar manner. Then we can think about making changes SKAG123 (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@SKAG123 Religion is the term which was commonly used by then kings.

when Prince muazzam invaded Konkan he burned whole villeges which was then come under the Maratha territories,he killed many civilians then but that was completely not the reason why Sambhaji defeated him in "Mughal invasion of Konkan Those both of the statements which says Sambhaji was punished only because of the reason of his atrocities.the second source is also saying that he killed Good Muslims! Now you also known that the sacking, plundering is only occured in history due to money.Till the relegious sites were destroyed we can't say that it was against the religion.As we doesn't have any single source in which there is saying that Marathas destroyed relegious sites during their sack.Here what I am trying to say that these both are very early historians & we can't consider anyones view regarding very important aspect of history which could also damage image of that Monarch & that was not supported by Khafi khans work. Different Histrorians have different views,Dennis Kincaid said that Sambhaji Was executed because of his Refusal of Converting his Relegion to Islam Jadunath Sarkar doesn't mentioned about the reason because there was no reason to kept him alive as they already mentioned that Aurangzeb asked him to surrender his forts & treasure & he will spare his life but Sambhaji doesn't accepted this proposal and he doesn't eat for some day,As his eyes & toung was already cutted and he was bleeding very badly,at last he was executed by cutting his head.there was no reason to execution that's why khafi Khan doesn't mentioned it and sarkar also doesn't commented about it.if a man continuously been tortured for many days(1feb1689-10March 1689,40 days) then how he would be alive?as he was not accepted to surrender his kingdom even after torturing for many days then there is no option rather that executing him.

his works are based on khafi khans works which is damn comtampory because he was there when sambhaji was executed & if he wasn't mentioned about the reason then simply we just don't put the reason which is not supported by nor Mughals nor Maratha sources which were that time witnessed! here I am not saying that we should remove that entire statement,here I am saying that We shou put there only aas "Sambhaji was executed on the orders of Aurangzeb after the heavy torture" which is the only true & conclusive statement of this whole Incident. Aryan330 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have quotes from Dennis Kincaid’s work that support your change please make another edit request stating your change and your source

the rest of your reply is original research (you clearly didn’t read WP:NOR)

if you want to make a change to an article you won’t be very successful using original research SKAG123 (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: You are flogging a dead horse. Continued outpouring of text in this thread will not convince anyone to make the change(s) you want. You may find it enlightening to study past edit requests in the Talk:Aurangzeb archives to see how successful and unsuccessful ones have been formulated. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Worldbruce Did you read the whole comments?

Atleast my last reply?

Everyone has a right to ask the answer.

The point here is there is a statement which given by the historians(only 2) of 20th century which is not present in any primary source(even the man who witnessed that event doesn't mentioned about it)

Another thing is "Not sure that Sambhaji was even present at the sack of Burhanpur" for the statement all this controversy happened.

I suggest you to read my last reply & you can crosscheck it Aryan330 (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

How important is that information to this article 2404:4408:1C3F:E300:FC6A:501E:441C:966D (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Grammatical error in the following line:

Change "Under Aurangzeb's emperorship, the Mughals reached its greatest extent with their territory spanning nearly the entire Indian subcontinent."

To "Under Aurangzeb's emperorship, the Mughal Empire reached its greatest extent with its territory spanning nearly the entire Indian subcontinent." Fshaikh27 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done--RegentsPark (comment) 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Already done voorts (talk/contributions) 20:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Execution of Opponents

Change the following text "In 1675 the 9th Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested on orders by Aurangzeb and later execute after he refused to Convert in Islam," to "In 1675 the 9th Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested on orders by Aurangzeb and later executed after he refused to Convert in Islam. " Mohib Alvi 22:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohibalvi (talk • contribs)

Succession

Why is it that Aurangzeb's reign type says 'Sovereignty' instead of 'Reign' like other monarchs? That1nedude (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Earlier versions of the infobox said reign. Does anyone object to the infobox label being changed from sovereignty to reign?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

Change "But the Jats once again attempted began their rebellion" to "But the Jats once again attempted rebellion" Werner Zagrebbi (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)