Re-evaluation of History in Truschke’s Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth, Postmodern Historiography Analysis


  • Tahreem Iftikhar Visiting Lecturer, Department of English, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan
  • Najam Ul Hassan M. Phil Scholar, Department of English, Government College University, Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan



Postmodern Historiography, Subjectivity in Truth, Traditional Historiography


This article argues for the re-evaluation of the representation of history in Truschke’s “Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth” by employing a postmodern historiographic lens. Historical facts are always distorted by using biased narration in historical works. In Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth, Truschke debunks all the allegations about Aurangzeb which were posed by traditional historians and presented him as a vile oppressor of Hindus. Traditional historiography differs from postmodern historiography in the representation of historical facts. Traditional historians replicate the history by repeating the same ideas and events from previous published historical books because nobody knows about the past and it is just accessible to us in the form of books so, in this way, history can neither true nor false while postmodern historiography points out the fact that history is always subjective in nature and it is written according to the historian’s stance.The textual analysis of “Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth” by Audrey Truschke and comparison of Truschke’s views with other historical narratives reveal different historical truths about Aurangzeb and she demystified all the myths by her strong understanding and employing the references of other historians and her history is so close to the level of historiography, maintained by Hutcheon having a good methodology and based on hermeneutics.





    Abstract Views: 65
    PDF Downloads: 110

How to Cite

Iftikhar, T., & Ul Hassan, N. (2022). Re-evaluation of History in Truschke’s Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth, Postmodern Historiography Analysis. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 6(2), 1127–1136.