BY : Mohammed Ameen Arimbra
Introduction
Muhiuddin Muhammed Aurangzeb is one among the most debated rulers in the Indian History. No one is more controversial than the last great ruler of Mughal empire Aurangzeb as he is portrayed as a religious fanatic, a Muslim fundamentalist, a ruthless tyrant and a bigot. In Indian history, Akbar and Aurangzeb are generally described as the hero and villain of the Mughal period. Whenever one thinks of Aurangzeb, the first important thing which comes to our mind is that of an orthodox fanatic because that is how we were taught. But is it justified in doing so? To answer or attempt these questions, it is important to dwell on Aurangzeb and his attitude towards Islam. Historians have taken two sides while writing about Aurangzeb, some were keen to represent him as a
 |
fanatic and others whom represent him as a liberal or non fanatic ruler. So lets try to understand if he was actually a biased ruler or is it the biased historians as a part of their hidden agenda interpreted him as a biased fanatic ruler. To understand this, lets try to analyse his rule by looking at various factors like the functional environment of state as he ascended the throne, his religious policies and his approach towards the non Muslims from the sources available. Lets begin with looking at the various scenarios and events that lead Aurangzeb to the throne of Mughal empire. He ascended the throne after a war of succession with his elder brother Dara Shikoh who was supposed to be the ruler as per the Mughal tradition. In the battle of Samugarh both the forces of Dara and Aurangzeb fought in which Aurangzeb came victorious. Even though Dara was considered to be a liberal and Aurangzeb, a face of orthodoxy, this battle cannot be seen as a battle of religious orthodoxy and liberal idea because Hindu(rajputs) and Muslim Rajas were equally placed on both sides. After the victory, Aurangzeb marched towards Delhi with ailing father Shajahan in the throne, he was forced to surrender and was send to house arrest. But as some sources suggest he was never ill treated, he lived 8 years lovingly nursed by one of his daughter Jahanara confined to the female apartments in fort. This marked the beginning of the most controversial rule in the Mughal history.
Aurangzeb then ruled for 49
years from 1658 to 1707 with the Mughal empire reaching its zenith and
territorial climax during his period, stretching from Kashmir in the north to
Jinji in the south, and from the Chittagong in the east to the Hindukush ranges
in the west. His rule was strongly marked by highly personalized approach and
he followed an expansionist policy to expand the Mughal empire to the east,
north east and the deccan. When Aurangzeb ascended the throne in 1658, the
state was already getting incorporated into the colonial era, with various
areas getting stagnated and it was also a period of various other powers
raising with Sikhs and Maratha's coming into the picture. The royal treasury
was also drained due to massive flow of wealth allotted for the construction of
Tajmahal by his father Shahjahan. It was
also a period in which many important cultural religious revivalist movements
were gaining ground in India. Now analysing more about Aurangzeb's religious
policies as a ruler, his religious policies can be divided mainly into two
broad phases, the first lasting up to 1679, and the second from 1679 to his
death in 1707.
The First Phase- 1658 to 1679
The first phase begins from
the year of his succession in 1658 to 1679 spanning over a period of twenty one
years. Shortly after his accession, a number of religious and moral regulations
were issued by Aurangzeb. This includes banning of sijda or prostration before
the king something which the clerics had maintained was reserved for God. But
these actions could not be described as puritanical because according to
Islamic belief sijda should be only done in front of the almighty. There were
officers called Muhtasibs appointed in every province and their duty was to
keep a check if people lived according to sharia. Thus it was the duty of these
officials to check the consumption of wine and intoxicants such as bhang in
public places. They also had the responsibility to regulate the houses of ill
repute, gambling centres and for checking weights and measures. Therefore in
some way, they were responsible for keeping a check on the forbidden substances
banned by the sharia and the zawabits (secular decrees) , and not to be defied
openly in public spaces. However if we have to believe the sources written by
the Italian traveller, Manucci, who lived in India during the Mughals, he has
stated that all these regulations were openly flouted. In case of appointing
Muhtasibs, Aurangzeb also emphasized on the fact that the state was also
responsible in some way to maintain the moral welfare of its citizens. But the
officials were strictly instructed not to intervene in the private lives of
citizens. In 1669, in the 11th year of his reign, Aurangzeb issued a
number of measures which have been called puritanical, but many of which were
actually of social and economic character, or against superstitious beliefs. He
is said to have forbidden singing in the court, with most of the court
musicians being pensioned off but
Naubat(Royal band) and instrumental music were allowed to be continued
in the court. Singing also continued to be patronised by individual nobles and
the ladies inside the Haram. In this context, it is also important to
note that the largest number of Persian works based on classical Indian music
were written during Aurangzeb's reign, and moreover Aurangzeb himself was an
expert in playing the Veena. During this period he also discontinued the
practice of Jharoka darshana which means showing himself to the public from the
balcony, since Aurangzeb considered it to be a superstitious practice.
Similarly, he also banned the ceremony of weighing the emperor against gold and
silver and other goods on his birthdays. Many regulations of related nature,
some of a moralistic character and some to create a kind of austerity, and some
to ban practices which was considered to be against the Islamic beliefs, were
issued. Other orders which he issued
were that the courtiers were forbidden from wearing silk gowns, or gowns which
had a mixture of silver and cotton. The expense of furnishing the throne room
was asked to be reduced and was
therefore furnished in a cheap and inexpensive manner, clerks were asked to use
porcelain ink stands instead of the silver stands, the gold railings in the
Diwani-am were asked to be replaced by those of lapis lazuli set on the gold
railings. Even the official department of history writing was discontinued as a
measure of limiting economic loss. Although some of these measures display a
puritanical frame of mind, most of mentioned above regulations were either
personal or related to his royal court as he was not a supporter of the lavish
royal lifestyle. These measures were prompted, as a part of a financial crisis
which Aurangzeb faced around this time. Following the economic loss caused by
the civil war, for a succession of years after 1660, there was meagre rainfall
which resulted in crop failure in most of the provinces. According to the
Maasir-i-Alamgiri, which can be considered as a semi-official history of
Aurangzeb, in the 13th year of his reign, it was reported that
expenses had surpassed income during the preceding twelve years. Therefore some
of the measures of economy followed by Aurangzeb were therefore "the
retrenchment of many items in the expenditure of the Emperor, the princes and
the Begums" (Chandra,2005). Similarly in the year 1671 he ordered that Karoris
of all crown lands should be compulsively Muslims and also the governors and
local officials were ordered to dismiss their Diwans( accountants) and
peshkars(clerks) and replace them by Muslims. But this decision lead to a
massive uproar among the nobles, because they pointed out that there were not
many competent Muslims. According to the famous historian Khafi Khan, the
measure was therefore withdrawn, and this fact remains unnoticed by most of our
historians
The controversial Temple
destruction and Imposition of Jiziyah
Two famous measures introduced
by Aurangzeb which can be termed as discriminatory and which shows a sense of
bigotry towards non-Muslims are destruction of temples, and reintroduction of
the Jiziyah tax. These two allegations are to be the reason why he was framed
as a fanatic and puritanical ruler by the historians. In the initial years of
his reign, Aurangzeb reiterated the view of Sharia regarding temples, churches
and synagogues that “ long standing temple should not be demolished but no new
temples were allowed to be built”(Chandra,2005). This is clear from the sources
which shows that he issuing a number extant farmans ( Royal orders) to the
brahmanas of Banaras and Vrindavan. Aurangzeb's order concerning the temples
was not a new one. It reaffirmed the position which prevailed during the
Sultanate period and which had been repeated by Shah Jahan early during his
reign. But in practice, the interpretation of the words "long
standing", left wide latitude to the local officials . In 1665, a number
of temples in Gujrat which included the famous Somnath temple, which Aurangzeb
as a prince of Gujrat had destroyed, but which was rebuilt in the interval,
were to be demolished. Finally, there is no exact reason to believe that later
Aurangzeb departed from this policy of limited tolerance, going against the
sharia law and ordered a general destruction of temples. No such orders of
destruction have been discovered, nor there is any reference of them in
Aurangzeb's letters or the Akhbarat. And reference to such destruction can be
only found in Maasir-i-Alamgiri, which was written after Aurangzeb's death.
Moreover, a lot of old Hindu temples still exist, and there is also written
evidences of Aurangzeb renewal of land grants to famous Hindu temples at
Mathura and also of him offering gift to them such as to the Sikh gurudwara at
dehradun, yogis in Pargana Didwana, Sarkar Nagor. Another evidence which
suggest Aurangzeb not to be a fanatic as he was portrayed is that, stone
inscription at the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut
Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. Another
evidence of Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites such as the
temple in Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those
sites However, in later period,
Aurangzeb followed a policy of selective destruction or bricking up of Hindu
temples, and this was done either as a warning to local Hindu rajas or as a
reprisal for rebelliousness. Therefore some of the famous temples of Vrindavan,
Mathura and Thatta were destroyed as a part of their policy. This reached its climax when in 1679,
following the death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh, and resistance on the part of
Rathors as a protest against bringing Marwar under Mughal administration
pending a decision of succession conflict, a number of old standing temples in
the area were destroyed. Unbiased views on Aurangzeb also suggest that
destruction of temples were also followed by the demolition of mosques.
However, when the Mughals attacked the Maratha territory and over-ran through
south India upto Jinji after 1687, the temples in these areas were left
undisturbed except in few isolated cases and many of them were listed in the
memoirs of Bhimsen. Therefore its clear
that his so called religious fanaticism or bigotry was implemented due to a
number of political factors and mainly the transformation of Sikhs, Marathas
and Deccani kingdoms into powerful entities which posed a serious threat
towards the Mughal empire. Therefore we can assume that he was not against the
religion Hinduism but against the persons belonging to religion who posed a
serious threat to the stability of the Mughal Empire.
 |
Another serious allegation
against Aurangzeb's reign was the reintroduction of the Jiziyah or poll tax
which was once stopped by Akbar. It should be remembered that Aurangzeb had
come to the throne in 1658 AD with the
support of the Ulemas and as an effect of the political movement started by a
group called Mujaddad-i-Alfi-i-thani that worked for the restoration of
orthodox Islam. Therefore soon after ascending the throne a major problem faced
by Aurangzeb was the question of jizyah. Orthodox clerical opinion had been
pushing forwards for its reimposition on the ground that it was wajib
(compulsory) according to the sharia, and also because they felt that jizyah
was a means of asserting the superior status of the theologians and Islam, and
emphasising the dependence and the inferior position of the non-Muslims in an
essentially Islamic state. But it was postponed due to certain political
exigencies and was later reintroduced twenty-two years after Aurangzeb's
accession to the throne which is a clear
indication that its institution was on account of 'political considerations',
and not "to promote the faith and to promote the laws of the sharia".
It should also be taken into consideration that zakat(2.5% of their total savings) and‘ushr(10% of the agricultural products)
were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain
minimum, called the nisab. They
also had to pay sadaqah,fitrah, and khums. None of these taxes were collected from any
non-Muslim. According to some English sources and the Italian, Manucci,
Aurangzeb was driven by the need to replenish his treasury, which had been
exhausted by constant wars and expansionist policy, and to compel the poorer
Hindus to convert to Islam. Some of the modern historians justified the
imposition of Jaziyah by stating that it was sanctioned by sharia since he had
abolished various taxes which were considered illegal. However, it should be
noted that apart from women, the insane and those in government service who
were excused, jizyah was not collected from the indigent who are defined as one
who owned no property, and whose income from labour did not go beyond his and
his family's necessities. In other words, jizyah can be described as a property
tax, not an income tax. The incidence of the tax was light on rich, but it was
burdensome for the poor hindus to pay the tax. The tax collection was
administered by Qazis, and it provided them immense opportunity to amass
wealth. Insistence on its personal collection in the towns was found harassing,
specially by the merchants. In a number of Urban centres, there was a mass
protest against this way of collection of Jiziyah and this was severly
criticised. However, though discriminatory, imposition of jiziyah cant be said
that it was designed to force non muslims to convert to Islam. Nor did it fundamenttaly
alter the character of the state. Aurangzeb's main idea behind this
reintroduction was politically motivated as he wanted the Ulema's or orthodox
theologian’s support during a political crisis and expected to rally Muslim
opinion behind him, especially in the context of a likely contest with the
Deccani Muslim states, but this remained unfulfilled. Jiziyah was not to the
liking of many nobles who repeatedly forwarded requests for temporary
remission, much to the annoyance of Aurangzeb. Finally, Aurangzeb was forced to
Suspend Jiziyah in Deccan,'on account of war and famine in the area' in
1705. Finally in 1712,Jizyah was
formally abolished at the instance of Asad Khan and Zulfiqar Khan, two of the
leading nobles of Aurangzeb.
The Second Phase : 1679-1707
Modern Historian Sir Jadunath
Sarkar in his biography of Aurangzeb, stated his opinion that "Neither age
nor experience of life softened Aurangzeb's bigotry." However, recent
research has taught us to modify this opinion.
Although Aurangzeb tried as far as possible to please the orthodox
clerical elements in his court, even he could not agree completly to some "orthodox" agenda put forward by
theologian like Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi. He refused to remove the Hindu rajas and
others out of the service of the state, making it clear on a petition
"What connection does religion have with worldly affairs"? And what
right have matters of religion to enter into bigotry? For you is your religion,
for me is mine. If this rule (suggested by you) were established it would be my
duty to extirpate all (Hindu) rajas and their followers."(Chandra, 2005)
In fact, the number of Hindus in the imperial service increased, both in
absolute numbers and proportionately at all levels during the second half of
his reign, as we shall note. And although Aurangzeb considered it lawful to
encourage conversion to Islam, there has been no evidence of systematic or
large-scale attempts, nor were Hindu nobles discriminated against. Another
intresting data which Athar Ali's study show us is that the number of Hindus in
the nobility during the second half of Aurangzeb's reign almost doubled with
the Hindus, including Marathas, forming about one-third of the nobility.
Aurangzeb installed a large numbers of Marathas into the service during the
second phase of his rule, Of the 96 Marathas who held ranks of 1000 zat and
above between 1679 and 1707,16 held ranks of 5000 and above, 18 held ranks
between 3000 and 4000, and 62 from 1000 to 2700, thus for surpassing the
Rajputs(Chandra,2005). However, they were not given important commands or
posts, or treated as integral parts of the imperial service. Therefore, these
figures of Hindus and Non Muslims in the court of a so called puritanical and
fanatic ruler is actually surprising .
Another change in Aurangzeb's
policy during the second phase is that after the conquest of Bijapur and
Golconda, Aurangzeb was faced with the task of gaining victory over the
powerful rajas, nayaks and deshmukhs of south India mainly of Telengana and
Karnataka. This led to change of his policy of destroying even long standing
temples as a method to counter the growing political opposition. Thus, a Hindu
subject of Aurangzeb, Bhimsen, noted in his memoir that "The temples in Bijapur and Hyderabadi
Karnataka are beyond numbering, and each temple is like the fort of Parenda and
Sholapur. In the whole world nowhere else are there so many temples"
(Chandra,2005). Many of the famous temples are specifically named and described
in detail by Bhimsen in his memoir. He goes on to say that, "From the
neighbourhood of Adoni and Kanchi and the kingdom of Jinji and the ocean, there
is not a village in which there is no temple, large or small". But still
these destructions are clearly to be seen as politically motivated and was not
as a result of an anti Hindu sentiment but to overcome some of the powerful
Hindu kings.
Conclusion
Historians are deeply divided when it comes to Aurangzeb's reign and his religious policies. According to some, he is known to have turned Akbar's policy of religious toleration and thus weakening the loyalty of the hindus towards Mughals in turn, leading to communal uproars and uprisings which eroded the vitality of the empire. But on the other side, some modern historians are of the opinion that Aurangzeb has been falsely accused, and that the Hindu Maharajas and Diwans had become disloyal and too powerful due to the slackness of Aurangzeb's predecessors, so that Aurangzeb as a ruler of an empire had no other way but to go on with harsh methods and to try to gather the Muslim support on whom, he believed the long run of the empire remained. Recent writings on Aurangzeb and his reign, there have been efforts made to evaluate Aurangzeb's political and religious policies in the circumstance of economic, social and institutional developments during his reign. Based on these researches, there is little doubt about him being orthodox in his beliefs. He was not a person who was interested in philosophical debates or in mysticism though he occasionally visited Sufi saints for their blessings, but It would be unfair to see Aurangzeb's religious policy in a rigid framework, considering his personal religious beliefs. As a ruler, Aurangzeb had to deal with a lot of political uprisings, economic, social and administrative problems. Therefore, there is no doubt in Aurangzeb's religious orthodoxy but it would be not right to depict him as a religious fanatic or a puritanical or as a bigot without considering the political, economic and social problems and crisis during his reign.
REFERENCES
Chandra,Satish(2005). Medieval India: From
Sultanat to the Mughals.2. Har-Anand Publications. pp.267–269.ISBN 9788124110669.
Retrieved 29 September2012.
Chandra, Satish(2005) Essays
on Medieval Indian History. Oxford India Paperback pp 485-488
Sadiq Ali (1918), A
Vindication of Aurangzeb: In Two Parts, p.
Athar Ali, M. (2006).Mughal India:
Studies in polity, ideas, society, and culture. New Delhi ; New York: Oxford
University Press
Sarkar, Jadunath (1912).History of
Aurangzib. M. C. Sarkar & Sons.
Retrieved 31 August2015.