Untangling Fact From Fiction: Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s Reign of Power
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. [1] 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.
[2] 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 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.
[3] 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, DilipRoy, 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 those 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/religious 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 Balajior 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 everyone 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 Aurangzeblater
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 [4],
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.
==========-
End
notes:
[1] See, e.g., Dr. Amartya Sen’s article – A World
Not Neatly Divided - comparing the rule in India by two Mughal rulers - Akbar
and Aurangzeb, which appeared in the New York Times on Nov. 23, 2001; http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/23/opinion/a-world-not-neatly-divided.html.
He wrote, “Consider Akbar and Aurangzeb, two Muslim
emperors of the Mogul dynasty in India. Aurangzeb tried hard to convert Hindus
into Muslims and instituted various policies in that direction, of which taxing
the non-Muslims was only one example. In contrast, Akbar reveled in his
multiethnic court and pluralist laws, and issued official proclamations
insisting that no one ''should be interfered with on account of religion'' and
that ''anyone is to be allowed to go over to a religion that pleases him.'' He
continued, “When Akbar was making his pronouncements on religious tolerance in
Agra, in the 1590's, the Inquisitions were still going on; in 1600, Giordano
Bruno was burned at the stake, for heresy, in Campo dei Fiori in Rome.”
[2] For
example, see Shri Binoy Ghosh’s Bharatjaner Etihash (Bengali for:
History of Indian People), Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
[4] 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).
[Author’s Note: This
article was written in 2001 in response to Dr. Amartya Sen’s article – A World
Not Neatly Divided - comparing the rule in India by two Mughal rulers - Akbar
and Aurangzeb, which appeared in the New York Times on Nov. 23, 2001; http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/23/opinion/a-world-not-neatly-divided.html.
It was subsequently posted in many Internet sites and Newspapers around the
globe.]
Comments
Post a Comment