By: Aniket Tathagata Chettry*
Assistant Professor, Department of History, Siliguri College, India
Submission: July 26, 2018; Published: August 30, 2018
*Corresponding author: Aniket Tathagata Chettry, Assistant Professor, Department of History, Siliguri College, India, Tel: 8637806065/ 7838058033; Email :
Introduction
Aurangzeb ascended the Mughal throne in 1658 after having emerged victorious in a bloody succession war against his brothers and having imprisoned his father-the erstwhile Sultan Shahjahan. For the next forty-nine years Aurangzeb ruled the Mughal empire, a period during which the empire reached its territorial zenith extending far south into the rich fertile valleys of the Karnataka region and even penetrating eastwards into the heart of the territories ruled over by the Ahom rulers. By the time Aurangzeb died in 1707, the Mughal empire ruled over a population that was double the size of contemporary Europe, had an army that counted among the largest in Asia and Mughal landholdings reached an all-time high [4,5]. However, the legacy of Aurangzeb till date is primarily that of a bigoted ruler whose bigotry was considered responsible for undermining the all embracive social order so painstakingly established by Akbar and maintained by the likes of Jahangir and Shahjahan. Aurangzeb’s zeal for Islamic orthodoxy is understood to have inaugurated a period of tyrannical oppression of the Hindu subjects of the Mughal empire; this discontentment of the Hindus expressing itself through a series of ‘Hindu’ rebellions like those of the Jats, Satnamis, Marathas, Rathores to name a few. While one does not deny the presence of these rebellions during Aurangzeb’s reign, what appears to be more problematic is the simplified argument inherent in labeling these actions in terms of a mere religious binary explained by ‘righteous Hindus’ revolting against an ‘evil Muslim’ ruler [6].
A look at a few basic questions can problematize this otherwise straight forward proposition around the assessment of Aurangzeb as a ruler: Were those who were rebelling resorting to such means to safeguard the religious rights of ‘Hindus’ as a group or were there other more political and economic reasons behind these uprisings? Could it be said that all Rajputs or all Marathas sided with the Rathores or with Shivaji when they rose against Aurangzeb? If there were also considerable number of Marathas and Rajputs who fought on the side of Aurangzeb during these very clashes, how does one explain the good Hindu- bad Muslim divide? Was a policy like temple desecration that is often used to indicate Aurangzeb’s deep-seated religious orthodoxy [7], really a pervasive policy applied by Aurabgzeb to all temples throughout his empire? If not, on what basis were temples destroyed? Were policies of Aurangzeb like the extremely unpopular idea of levying jizyah motivated by his zeal for restoring the position of Islam in the subcontinent or were there deeper motivations that prompted such acts?
Thus, posing such
questions and trying to find their answers is extremely crucial in
reaching a more nuanced understanding of Aurangzeb, his piety and his
politics [8,9]. This paper would try to investigate some of these
questions and through them reassess the complex socio-political
challenges that Aurangzeb faced in his rule and the way he responded to
these challenges. An evaluation of these challenges and responses is
expected to also put into perspective the debate regarding whether
Aurangzeb was indeed a religious bigot or was there more to his statecraft
than a mere love for Islamic orthodoxy.
The Piety and Politics
of Aurangzeb
In the eighth year of
his reign Aurangzeb constrained festivities on occasion of Nauroz, the
persian new year. Subsequently, from 1668 onwards, Aurangzeb is
attributed with having issued a series of decrees which included
withdrawal of imperial patronage from certain practices like
official history writing and music. Additionally, it is also believed
that Aurangzeb ceased appearing for jharokha darshans, and even
stopped the practice of tuladan [10,11]. In his personal life, Aurangzeb
was more pious than his predecessors who abstained from all forms of
alcohol and opium, prayed regularly and sewed prayer-caps and copyied the
Quran by hand in his free time. All these contributed in creating an aura
around Aurangzeb as a puritan and an Islamic bigot who strove to
establish a socio religious order based on the principles of Islamic
orthodoxy with no place for anything non-permissible to the Islamic
order. However, before accepting such an assessment of Aurangzeb as
an orthodox it is important to pay closer attention to each of these
actions that are attributed to Aurangzeb.
While it is true that
he did try to constraint festivities of Nauroz, it had nothing to do with
the un-Islamic character of this festival. Rather, Aurangzeb issued such
a command primarily because he viewed such festivals as a threat to
public order. Hence, not just Nauroz, Aurangzeb even tried to curb
the festivities associated with Diwali, Holi, Muharram and even
those associated with the major Muslim festivals of EId-ul-Fitr and
Eid-ul-Adha. To a certain extent Aurangeb’s fears were not completely
unwarranted as festivals in India did have a tendency of becoming law and
order issues. Foreign travel accounts are replete with incidents of
violence on festivals like Muharram and Holi. Keeping in mind public
safety, Aurangzeb issued such orders though it must be kept in mind that
there was no general order for banning these festivals and there are
several evidences which testify the celebration of festivals like Holi,
Diwali and Eid. Similarly, there was no overall ban imposed on music
either [12,13]. Rather Catherine Butler Brown suggests that the ‘ban’ if
at all was primarily in the form of prohibition of music in the presence
of the emperor himself. This was more a matter of personal renunciation
and was not forced upon other connoisseurs.
Therefore, one finds
several prominent nobles of Aurangzeb actively encouraging and
patronizing musicians and singers at this period. Infact, more musical
treatises were composed in the period of Aurangzeb than in the period of
his predecessors and Brown suggests that Aurangzeb himself encouraged
theoretical discourses on music. Regarding literature too, it must be
kept in mind that Aurangzeb was too well read to condemn literature
or poetry in general [14]. His letters frequently bore references to the
likes of Sadi, Hafiz, Rumi and others. As late as 1675, Aurangzeb
presided over the compilation of a legal compendium
known as
Fatwa-i-Alamgiri. He supported a huge imperial library and frequently
donated huge sums for the preservation of manuscripts. Thus, it is
unlikely such a person would ban literature. What seems more plausible is
a withdrawal of imperial patronage to the qasidagos or panegyrists.
However, patronage and encouragement of all sorts of poets
continued amongst princes and nobles of the court [15].
It is imperative to
keep in mind that Aurangzeb legitimized his political claim on grounds of
his adherence to orthodox Islam. In one of his letters to his imprisoned
father, Aurangzeb presents himself as having taken up the burden of
kingship for ‘restoring peace and the rule of Islam’. Similarly,
Aurangzeb brought about the execution of Dara Shukoh on grounds of his
purported heresy. Thus, for Aurangzeb, in the first part of his reign
it was essential to demonstrate to the world his commitment to the
Islamic strictures to maintain his political authority which relied on
his adherence to the precepts of Islam. The various proclamations attributed
to Aurangzeb thus needs to be placed within this context as part of his
efforts to show that his kingship was strictly in conformity to the
Islamic principles he upheld. This does not however mean that the
celebration of festivals or the practicing of music or the tradition of
literature disappeared from Mughal India. Rather, as discussed above all
these cultural forms continued to flourish throughout Mughal India giving
the impression that these prohibitions were only a part of his
public persona that he maintained but was not enforced upon
others.
Statecraft and
Aurangzeb: Exploring Aurangzeb’s Religious Rhetoric considering his
Statecraft
One of Aurangzeb’s
most debated and controversial policy was his imposition of the jizyah in
1679. Examining the logic behind this action Saqi Mustaid Khan argues
that Aurangzeb’s desire to uphold the laws of sharia and thereby
suppress the infidels forced him to pass an injunction allowing for
the imposition of jizyah. Saqi Mustaid Khan was supported by Ali
Muhammad Khan and Iswardas who agree with him but also emphasise on the
role of the ulema. According to them, the ulema realizing Aurangzeb’s
zeal for upholding the rules of the Sharia represented to him that the
levying of the jizyah on the infidels was compulsory according to the
sharia. These arguments emphasize on Aurangzeb’s regard for Islamic
tenets and his deference to the ulema as the main causes behind the
imposition of jizyah. The jizyah was primarily a tax that was levied on the
non-Muslim populace.
In Aurangzeb’s reign,
the money obtained from jizyah was deposited in a separate treasury
called the ‘ khazanah-i-jizyah’. The proceeds from this was to be given
as charity to members of the learned class and to theologians. The
officials who were charged with the responsibility of looking after this
treasury were all staffed from the ulema class. For Aurangzeb who
sought a public persona of one who ruled according to the
injunctions of the sharia, the imposition of jizyah provided an
ideal
In Aurangzeb’s reign,
the money obtained from jizyah was deposited in a separate treasury
called the ‘ khazanah-i-jizyah’. The proceeds from this was to be given
as charity to members of the learned class and to theologians. The
officials who were charged with the responsibility of looking after this
treasury were all staffed from the ulema class. For Aurangzeb who
sought a public persona of one who ruled according to the
injunctions of the sharia, the imposition of jizyah provided an ideal
opportunity to validate such claims. Furthermore, the levying of jizyah
and keeping the proceeds in the hands of the theological classes has also
forced historians to suggest that Aurangzeb had a high regard for the
ulema whom he constantly appeased. However, the jizyah issue merits two
important questions [16]. Firstly, did Aurangzeb’s public acts like the
imposition of jizyah imply a close relationship between the emperor and
the ulema? Secondly, did Aurangzeb’s constant need to portray himself as
a ruler whose social order was based on upholding the laws of sharia
ensure his violation of the Akbarid social order based on ideas of
sulh-i-kul?
In Islamic conception
of the state, the ulema, umrah and the sultan were the three pillars of
the state. However, Akbar barring the early years of his reign never
allowed the members of the ulema to dictate affairs of the state. His aim
was to reduce the power of the ulema and the mahzarnama of 1579 is often
seen as a landmark step in curbing the ulema. The ulema had a very
narrow perception of the state where the state would be guided by the
interests of the Islamic community with the non-believers being
constantly suppressed. Akbar on the other hand never wanted the state to
be confined to the precepts of a religion [17]. For him, justice was the
cornerstone of the social organization which could only be achieved by
maintaining the balance among diverse interest groups and only then could
the society strive towards a state of perfection.
On the other hand, as
this paper has already mentioned Aurangzeb’s claim to power relied on his
adherence to the Islamic principles, so it is but natural to assume that
Aurangzeb would give much more prominence to the ulema in matters
of governance. The imposition of jizyah and the privileges accorded
to the Islamic clerical classes in collection of jizyah can easily be
proofs of the deferential attitude that the emperor had towards the
ulema. However, such an assumption would be far from the actual reality
of Aurangzeb’s attitude to the ulema [18]. A cursory glance at
Aurangzeb’s policies make it very clear that he did not like the
interference of the ulema in matters of statecraft. For instance, the
ulema was always critical of the assimilation of Hindus to high ranks
with the Mughal administration and they were the most vocal opponents of
the Mughal policy of entering matrimonial alliances with the
Rajputs.
Aurangzeb’s ascension
did not change this trend of increasing Hindu participation in Mughal
administration despite repeated protestations from the ulema class. Under
Akbar, Hindus constituted 22.5% of all Mughal nobles. In the first twenty
years of Aurangzeb’s rule this remained at a steady 21.6%. Between
1679-1707 Aurangzeb increased Hindu participation at the elite levels of
the Mughal state by nearly 50%, with Hindus occupying 31.6% of the
nobility. This ‘Hindu’ section included large number of Rajputs, Marathas
as well as other caste and sectarian groups. Not only were they appointed
within the administration, but they were also given high mansabs.
Marathas like Kanhoji Deccani and Yashwant Rao enjoyed a mansab of 5000
and 4000 respectively. Later when Shivaji’s son Shahu was imprisoned
by the Mughals, he was given a mansab of 7000.
Rajputs from different
clans also enjoyed high mansabs. The likes of Jaswant Singh of Marwar and
Jai Singh of Amber enjoyed mansabs of 7000 while Raj Singh of Mewar had a
rank of 6000. Even the Iranis despite mainly belonging to Shia sect did
well under Aurangzeb. Between 1658-1678, 23 Iranis held the rank of
5000 and above. Though between 1678-1709, their number had come down to
14 Iranis enjoying a rank of 5000 and above, only 6 Turanis held a
similar rank in this period. Aurangzeb’s attitude to administration
becomes evident from his reply to a petition drafted by a Muslim from
Bukhara who had entered Mughal service. He had requested the withdrawal
of Persians from high positions as they were Shias and not Sunni. To
this Aurangzeb’s reply was that religion should be kept away from
worldly affairs and administration should be vested in men of ability
irrespective of their religious affiliations. Thus, this shows that in
matters of state craft Aurangzeb did not depart from established Mughal
practices and if the views of the ulema were clashing with his views of
statecraft, he always gave precedence to the latter over the
former.
Similarly, Aurangzeb
like his predecessors liked interacting with learned divines of various
denominations. He was known for having discourses with the Bairagi saint
Mangaldas Maharaj whom he also gave large grants and his visiting of the
tombs of famous Sufi saints is also well known. In 1686-87 on way
to annexing the Golconda state, Aurangzeb spent a week in the mausoleum
of the famous Sufi saint Gesu Daraz. Even in his patronage, Aurangzeb was
fairly catholic. Aurangzeb renewed the land grants of several temples at
Mathura, Allahabad, Brindavan and elsewhere. In 1687, the emperor gave
land to Ramjivan Gosain to build houses for ‘pious Brahmins and
fakirs’. In 1691, he conferred eight villages and substantial
tax-free land to support the Balaji temple. In 1698, he granted lland
to a Brahmin named Rang Bhatt in Khandesh. Aurangzeb enacted similar
policies towards the Jains as well granting land at Shatrunjaya, Girnar
and Mount Abu in the late 1650s. In 1681, he donated land for a Jain
monastery to a Jain monk named Lal Vijay. As late as 1703, he issued
orders to stop people from harassing the Jain religious leader Jina
Chandra Suri. He also gave lavish gifts to the Sikh gurudwara at
Dehradun.
These are only a
few examples, but they indicate that despite Aurangzeb’s claims of being
the protector of Islam and implementing the Sharia in matters of state,
as far as functioning of the government is concerned Aurangzeb did not
deviate from the established Mughal traditions of governance [19]. He
kept relying on an ethnically, linguistically and religiously
diverse nobility for the smooth functioning of his administration.
People were still given the freedom to practice and preach the religion
of their choice. One does not hear of any state-sponsored conversion
drives being initiated by Aurangzeb. Occasional cases of conversion did
take place, but such converts were mostly small Zamindars or petty state
employees who converted expecting preferential treatment after their
conversion. Aurangzeb was liberal in matters of providing endowments to
religious
institutions and most
religious groups enjoyed the munificence of the emperor. He also
frequently interacted with members of other religious beliefs.
The ulema would
not have enjoyed many of these measures as these policies would have been
contradictory to their narrow Sunni-oriented sharia-based view of the
state but the fact that these practices continued till the time of
Aurangzeb’s death indicate that the ulema were not policy makers and that
the emperor rarely sought their advice in state matters.
Aurangzeb’s relation with the ulema was often shaped by his
political requirements. When Aurangzeb’s vision of state clashed
with the ideas of the clerical class, Aurangzeb did not hesitate in
suppressing the interests of the ulema. This is extremely clear from
Aurangzeb’s decision to conquer Golconda and Bijapur [20]. The
theological elements in the emperor’s camp were not impressed by the
decision as is evident from the refusal of the Shaikh-ul-Islam to give a
fatwa to the campaign who felt the decision to wage war against a fellow
Muslim ruler is unlawful. However, Aurangzeb was not swayed, and he
carried out his campaign despite the opposition of the ulema.
Similarly, when
Aurangzeb felt his political interests required appeasing the ulema, he
did, as is evident from the imposition of the jizyah. The fact that the
jizyah was imposed in 1679- 22 years after Aurangzeb ascended the throne
has been pointed by many historians as indicative of the fact that it had
to do less with the emperor’s desire to upholding the shariah than
with political requirements of the period [21-23]. 1679 was the
time when Aurangzeb was facing a myriad of problems: the Sikhs had
become rebellious in areas around Punjab while the conflict with the
Rathore showed no signs of abating and had only intensified in the years
leading upto the levying of the jizyah. Siimilarly, the region of Deccan
posed a challenge to Aurangzeb as well with the Marathas under Shivaji
constantly harassing Mughal forces and encroaching upon Mughal
territories. To make matters worse, Aurangzeb’s policy of shoring up the
Bijapur or Golconda state against the Marathas had also failed with these
states more willing to ally with Shivaji than with the expansionist Mughal
state. In such a situation, to mobilize Muslim support behind him
Aurangzeb felt the need for reverting to a rhetoric of an orthodox state
and what better way to signify this than by reimposing jizyah. He was
aware such a step would please the ulema as well and the decision to
staff the administration of the khazanah-i jizyah with members of this class
was simply another step of appeasing the ulema. He hoped that the
clerical class would help him in rallying Muslim popular support behind
him.
Thus, what our discussion
so far clearly establishes is that Aurangzeb was aware of the Mughal
traditions of administration and governance that had been put in place by
his predecessors and he was not keen on deviating from them. However,
his religious rhetoric was often determined by political exigencies
and by doing so he ended up giving a religious undertone to his
politicking. His commitment to upholding Islamic principles was primarily
a means to legitimize his precarious political position
that had become evident
post his actions of imprisoning his father and executing his brothers. It
was as part of his efforts to reinforce that his kingship conformed to
orthodox Islamic principles of statecraft that one finds him publicizing
his acts of banning music, literature and other un-Islamic practices
like celebration of nauroz, tuladan, jharokha darshan. However,
this paper has already shed light on the limited nature of most of
these prohibitions thereby demonstrating their inefficacy in the wider
social arena. Even the policy of imposing jizyah which held within it the
promise of reverting to a more orthodox setup was a step primarily taken
to mobilize support in order to meet the political challenges that
Aurangzeb faced. Interestingly, despite the imposition of jizyah,
Aurangzeb did not bring about any radical change in the functioning of
the state.
The ulema gained no
considerable say in workings of the state and neither did Aurangzeb give
up his policies of assimilating non-Muslims in his administration or
providing financial support to non- Muslim religious institutions
and individuals. There was no state sponsored drive to bring about
mass conversions nor do we have any evidence pointing to a ‘Hindu
genocide’. All these indicate that Aurangzeb’s religious rhetoric was
more motivated by realpolitik than from a genuine need to exercise and
implement the rules of the sharia in society. Nowhere does this become
clearer than in Aurangzeb’s policies of selective temple desecration.
Aurangzeb and his
Policies of ‘Selective’ Temple Desecration
Historians of the
likes of Jadunath Sarkar and S.R. Sharma have used the notion of temple
desecration to vilify Aurangzeb. According to them, Aurangzeb’s bigotry
and anti-Hindu nature expressed itself in ‘wanton acts of temple
desecration’. They pointed out his destruction of the Keshavnath temple
in Mathura, Vishwanath temple in Benares and the destruction of
temples throughout Rajputana as evidences of such wanton acts.
While none of these evidences are incorrect but what such arguments
lack is a proper contextualization of these actions. Richard Eaton is his
very influential article on ‘temple desecration and Indo Muslim states’ very
rightly argued that the notion of temple desecration was a very
politically motivated action in the context of pre-modern India,
prevalent from even before the advent of Islam into India.
The political role
played by temples in consolidating political authority is well known to
most scholars of South Asian history. Royal temples housing the state
deity often referred to as kuladavata expressed the sovereignty of the
king thereby allowing such temples to serve as sites where kingship
was created, legitimized and often revitalized. Given this
political connection between temple, deity and kings scholars like
Richard Davis and Richard Eaton have demonstrated numerous instances of
temple desecration seen through early medieval Indian history occurring
during times of inter-dynastic conflicts. In 642 A.D, the pallava king
Narasimhavarman attacked the Chalukyas and destroyed their royal temple looting
their state deity from their capital. Such actions of destroying royal
temples and looting the central deity were carried out with the
explicit aim of detaching a vanquished king from the most visible
sign of his former legitimacy. Thus, the act of temple desecration was
well established within the Indian political rhetoric. During the period
of the Turkish conquest, they replicated these political patterns and
traditions. Unfortunately, we have not been able to determine the exact
number of temples destroyed by the Turkish forces as records left, if any
have often not survived. Furthermore, the eagerness of court chroniclers
to portray their patrons as ideal Muslim kings often resulted in actions
of temple destruction being attributed to kings even where there were
no such actions performed.
Based on
epigraphic and literary evidences, Eaton identifies eighty instances of
temples desecration spanning over five centuries (1192-1729), most of
which were along a moving military frontier carried out by the state to
denounce the legitimacy of vanquished local ruling houses. For instance,
as the Mughal state annexed new territories, temple desecration
accompanied these new conquests as is evident in Assam where the Mughal
defeat of the Ahoms was followed by destruction of the chief temples
patronized by the Ahom rulers. Such a theoretical understanding of temple
desecration does not deny the destruction of temples but places it within
a much larger tradition associated with political needs of states, rather
than as an ideological weapon for suppressing the Hindus. From
Akbar’s period the Mughals saw temples as part of state property
and took steps to protect them, renovate them and even patronize
them. These policies continued with Aurangzeb who as has been documented
earlier patronized temples and their functionaries. A farman from 1659 to
officials in Banaras instructed them to protect Hindu temples and their
functionaries and prevent any unlawful harassment of them so that they
could continue praying for the continuation of the Empire. But then were
there temples that Aurangzeb destroyed and if yes, why?
While it is true that
Aurangzeb did destroy temples like the famed Vishwanath temple at Benares
and the Keshavnath temple at Mathura, there was no instruction given
regarding the general desecration of all temples throughout the empire.
The temples that however still faced the wrath of the emperor suffered
such a fate primarily because of the close linkages that existed
between temples and temporal authority in pre-modern India.
Following the treaty of Purandhar, Jai Singh the Rajput chieftain from
Amer made great efforts to bring about an alliance between
Aurangzeb and Shivaji. The subsequent visit of Shivaji to the
emperor’s court and the resultant conflict between which saw
Shivaji imprisoned is by now a very popular tale that needs to
recount. Shivaji’s later escape from prison is an equally
well-known incident. However, Aurangzeb suspected Jai Singh’s
complicity in Shivaji’s escape. Subsequently, the Vishwanath temple
built by Jai Singh was destroyed by Aurangzeb as a punishment for
Jai Singh’s alleged complicity in Shivaji’s escape. The year 1670
witnessed a revolt
among the Jats of Mathura. Once, Aurangzeb had captured and punished the
ring leaders, he ordered the destruction of the Keshavnath Temple.
Similarly, several temples throughout Marwar and Mewar were destroyed
when Aurangzeb was suppressing the violent Rajput rebellion that
had broken out in these two regions. Interestingly Aurangzeb was not the
only Mughal Emperor to resort to such tactics. When Shahjahan was
suppressing the Bundela rebellion, he destroyed the great temple at
Orchha that was patronized by the rebel Jhujjar Singh Bundela. What these
incidents demonstrate is that when non-Muslim subjects of the Mughal
emperors engaged in open rebellion, the state resorted to principles of
‘selective’ temple desecration, targeting particularly those temples
that were clearly associated with the rebel groups or individuals. Therefore,
selective temple desecration appears to be a potent political action that
Mughal emperors including Aurangzeb adopted to denounce the very
legitimacy of those who posed a threat to the Mughal political order. The
political nature of these acts of temple desecration becomes all the
moreclear when we examine Aurangzeb’s attitude in the Deccan.
Having annexed Bijapur and Golconda in 1687, Aurangzeb’s desire was
to expand further south and bring under imperial control the vast country
that extended upto Jinji. This region was populated with a number of
Hindu chieftains and Zamindars. To appease these groups, one finds
Aurangzeb never resorting to acts of temple desecration even when Hindu
rajas of the region like Pam Nayak. The Nayaks of Madurai and Jinji
opposed the Mughals. This indicates that temple desecration was a very
political act, resorted to or desisted from as and when it suited the
political requirements of Aurangzeb. To confuse this to be an
expression of his faith would be a historical anachronism.
Thus, to conclude this
paper attempts to examine the politics and piety of Aurangzeb. Though
several of his actions including the imposition of jizyah, the
desecration of temple, banning of music have all been interpreted as part
of his attempts to organize a state based on Islamic tenets where a
conscious policy was followed to alienate Hindus, this paper tries
to show that it is important to contextualize such action before
drawing inferences. This paper attempts to explore the politics that
prompted actions like levying jizyah or following a policy of selective
desecration of temples and it is argued that in most instances it was out
of Aurangzeb’s need to maintain his political authority or mobilize a
certain section of the population that he resorted to such activities.
Thus, while the paper does not deny the historical facts around the
impostion of jizyah or the destruction of temples, it presses for a
closer scrutiny of these actions to see whether indeed it was the piety
of Aurangzeb that was manifesting itself through such acts or was it
simply the realpolitik that motivated such actions.
References
1. Alamgir, Muihuddin
(1974) Adab-i-Alamgiri (Vincent Flynn, Trans.). Phd. Dissertation,
Australian National University, Australia.
2. Bernier, Francoise
(1989) Travels in the Moghul Empire (I.Brock, Trans.). Low Price
Publications, New Delhi, India.
3. Khan, Saqi Mustaid
(1947) Maasir-i-Alamgiri (Jadunath Sarkar, Trans.). Royal Asiatic Society
of Bengal, Kolkata, India.
4. Manucci, Niccolao
(1990) Storia Der Mogul (W.Irvine, Trans.). Low Price Publications, New
Delhi, India.
5. Nagar Ishwardas
(1978) Futuhat-i-Alamgiri (Tasneem Ahmed,Trans.). New Delhi:
Idarah-i-Abadiyat-i-Dilli; Khan,Ali Muhamamad (1927). Mirat-i-Ahmadi
(Saiyyad Nawab Ali and Charles Seddon, Trans.). Oriental Institute,
Baroda, Gujarat, India.
6. Nimacha Hamiduddin
Khan (1949) Ahkam-i-Alamgiri ( Jadunath Sarkar,Trans.). M.C.Sarkar and
Sons, Kolkata, India.
7. Alam Muzaffar
(2004) Languages of Political Islam in India. Permanent Black, New Delhi,
India.
8. Ali Athar (1997)
The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb. Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
India.
9. Ali Athar (2006)
Mughal India: Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society and Culture. OUP, New
Delhi, India.
10. Brown, Katherine.
(2007) Did Aurangzeb Ban Music: Questions for the Historiography of his
Reign. Modern Asian Studies 41(1): 77-120.
11. Chandra Satish
(1969) Jizyah and State in Seventeenth Century India. Journal of the
Social and Economic History of the Orient 12(3): 322- 340.
12. Chandra, Satish
(1986) Cultural and Political Role of Delhi: 1675:1725. In: Frykenberg RE
(Eds.), Delhi Through the Ages: Essays in Urban History, Culture and
Society. Oxford University Publications, New Delhi, India.
13. Chandra, Satish
(2002) Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
14. Chandra, Satish
(2003) The Religious Policy of Aurangzeb. In Satish Chandra (Eds.),
Essays in Medieval Indian History. Oxford University Publications, New
Delhi, India.
15. Eaton, Richard
(2000) Essays on Islam and Indian History. Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, India.
16. Farukhi Z (1972)
Aurangzeb and His Times. Idara-i-adbiyat-i-Delhi, New Delhi,
India.
17. Faruqui Munis
(2014) Dara Shukoh, Vedanta and Imperial Succession in Mughal India. In:
Vasudha Dalmia and Munis Faruqui (Eds.), Religious Interactions in Mughal
India. Oxford University Publications, New Delhi, India.
18. Nizami KA (1985)
State and Culture in Medieval India. Adam Publishers, New Delhi,
India.
19. Richards JF
(1993). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
USA.
20. Sarkar, Jadunath
(1928) History of Aurangzeb, 5 Vols. M.C.Sarkar and Sons, Kolkata,
India.
21. Sharma SR (1940)
The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors. Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, India.
22. Trushke, Audrey
(2017) Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth. Penguin Books, Delhi,
India.
23. Zayman, Taimiyya
(2007) Inscribing Empire: Subjectivity and Sovereignty in Mughal Memoirs.
Ph.D Dissertation, University of Michigan, USA.