Untangling myth from fiction: Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb's Reign of Power

[sonz]

by Habib Siddiqui

"It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations."

In a polarized world that we live in (which is, sadly, getting ever more polarized now by every minute and hour), we have often assumed that what is good for “our” people had to be bad for the “other” people. A glaring example is the personality of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who ruled India for 50 years. Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 C.E., probably no one generates as much controversy as Aurangzeb. He has been hailed as anyone from a “Saintly or Pauper Emperor” to one who “tried hard to convert Hindus into Muslims.” Depending on one’s religious rearing, one will favor one view over the other. For example, most Hindus castigate Aurangzeb as a religious Muslim, who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated them away from high administrative positions, who interfered in their religious matters. On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted ruler. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government-approved text books in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947) is sufficient.[1] The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records.

It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] 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. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: “No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions.” During Aurangzeb’s long reign of 50 years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions.

Two of the highest ranked generals, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, in Aurangzeb’s administration were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially, in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had 14 Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known. It does not require much intelligence to understand the difference between 14 and 148. But when truth is hostage to bigotry, facts are substituted for fiction, 148 may appear to be smaller than 14 to disingenuous historians, and that is an unfortunate reality we face.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur’an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that “There is no compulsion in religion.” (Qur’an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Unbelievers) clearly states: “To you is your religion and to me is mine.” It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of history text book, Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History), used in Bengal, published by the Hindustan Press, 10 Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta, for the 5th and 6th graders states: “If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant.”

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same text book reads: “During the 50-year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities.” (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb’s 50-year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

These above references clearly show that accusations of forced conversion and religious intolerance are false. It is also evident that since the independence of India in 1947, there has been an overt attempt by revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians in India to malign the Muslim history.

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that Jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that while Jizya tax was collected from able-bodied non-Muslim adult males who did not volunteer to join war efforts in a Muslim-administered country, a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war-efforts for defense of the Muslim-administered state. Zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘Ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called Nisab). They also had to pay sadaqah, fitrah and Khums. None of these taxes were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita tax collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims.

I would also like to state here that before the advent of Islam in India, Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called “Fix” tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith) War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers. Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy)

Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book “Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar, [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign in power, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million Rupees from the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb)

I could see how even fair-minded individuals like Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen may have been deceived by the deadly venoms of dishonest, prejudiced historians whose sole aim has been to smear Muslim history. Such intellectual dishonesty by historians is dangerous - more explosive and more damaging than nuclear bombs. We have already seen its hideous effect with the destruction of Muslim historic sites (including the Babri Mosque) and recent riots in India that killed thousands of Muslims. Let us not fall into the trap set by those who want to “neatly divide our world.” Let truth vanquish falsehood.

Notes:

[1]. For example, see Shri Binoy Ghosh’s Bharatjaner Etihash (Bengali for: History of Indian People), Kolkata, West Bengal, India.

[2]. Quoted in Chepe Rakha Itihash (The History – Hushed Up) by G. A. Murtaza, Barddhaman, India.

[3]. He demonstrated his vast knowledge of Persian-language (the official language during the Mughal period) sources. However, he was a Euro-centric historian and thus, not flawless in historical accounts. He served as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta (1926-28).

[sonz]

subhanalah

this is a major blow to those who say that indian muslim rulers were not tolerant and anti-hindi

this is what happens if muslims dont known about their history. the anti-islamics will distort everything like isdhilion with his sikh propganda

[seek.learn]

Assalaam o alaikum,

JazakAllah u khairun for sharing this. A very interesting read.

Alaikum Salaam

[Sarmad]

Have the heart to hear the truth:

anti-islamic link

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Bittersteel]

Muslim rulers were intolerant with the exception of some.a lot intolerant.but so were rulers of other religion.
why did they invade?anyone who read history will know rulers of the past used to have ambitions of their own.personal ambition of leaders.

assalam Lucifer go here.
Look AI sites are crap.they don't make sense.have the heart to hear the truth.

I am not saying Siddiqui is right.I am saying Answering Islam is wrong.Most of its crap have been refuted but anti-Islamists don't want to change their views.What can we do then?Cut off their heads? :lol:

[Sarmad]

anyone who read history will know rulers of the past used to have ambitions of their own.personal ambition of leaders.

I am glad you are willing to acknowledge that their have been rulers which used religion to validate extremism.

assalam Lucifer go here.
Look AI sites are crap.they don't make sense.have the heart to hear the truth.

true but it is not just islam-haters who have taken these quotes out of context, so too did the muslim leaders who were driven by their personal ambition.

I am not saying Siddiqui is right.I am saying Answering Islam is wrong.Most of its crap have been refuted but anti-Islamists don't want to change their views.What can we do then?Cut off their heads? :lol:

[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say everything they say is crap I have learned alot from that site especially with respect to the "spin" by many islamic apologists in their discourses.

Have a devilish day ;D

[Mohsin]

I wouldn't say everything they say is crap I have learned alot from that site especially with respect to the "spin" by many islamic apologists in their discourses.

The above quote shows you haven't learned a lot

[Mohsin]

Btw it's got to be said its a wonderful article. i myself had always been taught Aurangzeb was a tyrant ruler. Sunhanallah the depths people go to to distort the image of islam

[Sarmad]

Btw it's got to be said its a wonderful article. i myself had always been taught Aurangzeb was a tyrant ruler. Sunhanallah the depths people go to to distort the image of islam

But we have just clarified how the tyrannical rulers cannot be related to Islam and now you are saying that Aurangzeb is great but he validated extremism with Islam does this mean Islam is tyrannical in nature? and to deny this would be a distortion of Islam because you are praising Aurangzeb, its amazing how you have never revoked the abundance of evidence provided to support the self-evident tyranny of the moghuls, but have accepted this two-a-penny scholar, where is the sound intellect in that, people just accept what tickles their ears.

Have a devilish day :)

[Mohsin]

But we have just clarified how the tyrannical rulers cannot be related to Islam and now you are saying that Aurangzeb is great but he validated extremism with Islam does this mean Islam is tyrannical in nature? and to deny this would be a distortion of Islam because you are praising Aurangzeb, its amazing how you have never revoked the abundance of evidence provided to support the self-evident tyranny of the moghuls, but have accepted this two-a-penny scholar, where is the sound intellect in that, people just accept what tickles their ears.

Have a devilish day :)

What i meant was that people always say islam was spread by sword because of what this ruler did. Regardless of whether he did it in the name of islam or not, people alwyas relate it to the spread of Islam with the sword, thats why i said people how people always try and distort the message of islam by associating non-islamic incidents with the religion

Secondly, the two-apenmny scholars you are referring to, well in the articcle they are quoted as being non-muslim historians. Why would they lie. I mean theres nothing wrong with saying the guy was a tyrant ruler, it doesn't chnage anything, muslims aren't denying there have been tyrant rulers, so it would be perfectly acceptable by muslims to say he was a tyrant ruler, but the non-muslims quoted above have said its not true

[Sarmad]

but the non-muslims quoted above have said its not true

And what of the vast number of non-muslims who say he was a tyrant?, is there views to be branded as propaganda because you are unwilling to accept negative actions of the muslims, today we have a lot of terrorism, in a few years people may write and distort history to the point where all beheadings are in fact non-muslim propaganda, 9/11 was a conspiracy and the americans blew up the mosque in samarra. But we all know today that this is not true. The simple man who just wants to live his life won't bother writing the history cos they don't expect that it will be denied to such an extent, and when history is rewritten then history will also repeat itself because someone never exercised responsibility and told the truth, therefore people never had the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

Ego is destroying the world:)

[AvarAllahNoor]

by Habib Siddiqui

"It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations."

.

By Guru Gobind Singh Ji in 1705

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MUGHAL/SIKH.HTM

Zafarnama sent by the tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji in 1705 to the Em means the Notification of Victory and is the name given to the letter peror of India, Aurangzeb. The letter is written in exquisite Persian verse.
In this letter, Guru Ji reminds Aurangzeb how he and his henchmen had broken their oaths taken on holy Koran. Even so, this treacherous leader could not harm the Guru. Guru Ji states in this letter that in spite of his several sufferings, he had won a moral victory over the crafty Mughal who had broken all his vows. Despite sending a huge army to capture or kill the Guru, the Mughal forces did not succeed in their mission.

The letter reads like a reprimand by a superior personality on a higher plane to a cruel and distorted inhuman being on a lower and pitiful plane. Guru Ji in the 111 verses of this notice rebuke Aurangzeb for his weaknesses as a human being and for excesses as a leader. Guru Ji confirms his confidence and his unflinching faith in the Almighty even after suffering extreme personal loss.

Of the 111 verses, the maximum numbers of 34 verses are to praise God; 32 deal with Aurangzeb’s invitation for the Guru Ji to meet him and Guru Ji refusal to meet the Emperor - instead Guruji asks Aurangzeb to visit the Guru; 24 verses detail the events in the Battle of Chamkaur , which took place on 22 December 1704; 15 verses reprove Aurangzeb for breaking promise given by him and by his agents to the Guru; In verses 78 and 79, the Master had also warned Aurangzeb about the resolve of the Khalsa not to rest till his evil empire is destroyed; 6 verses praise Aurangzeb.

And you say he was just!!

[AvarAllahNoor]

people just accept what tickles their ears.

Have a devilish day :)

You sound surprised brother :)

[Sarmad]

You can read the whole of zafarnama online:

http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=1469