“Neither age nor experience of life softened Aurangzeb’s bigotry” – SR Sharma
The comment by Historian SR Sharma in his book The
Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors perceives Aurangzeb as a bigoted
ruler who was motivated by his personal faith when it came to attitude towards
the state. It is therefore important to analyse the policies throughout his
reign to know whether this comment really defines the emperor.
Muhi-ud-Din Muhammed, the sixth ruler of the Mughal
dynasty, known by his reginal name- Aurangzeb Alamgir (1027-1118 Al Hijra)
is the most controversial Mughal ruler, the one most debated for the policies
he had implemented. He took to the throne in 1658 after the war of succession
against his own brothers and having imprisoned his father- Shahjahan.[1]
The reign of Aurangzeb marked both, the zenith as well as the climax of the
Mughal rule, on one hand, it was at this time when most territories were
controlled under the Mughal rule, and on the other hand, the successors of
Aurangzeb have been uncapable of ruling and thus the decline of the Mughal
rule. The reason why Aurangzeb has become a heated topic of debate is because
Aurangzeb is seen to be following the footsteps of a bigoted ruler, who
continuously lashed Akbar’s efforts of an embracive society to the ground.
In order to understand whether Aurangzeb’s attitude
towards state and religion were really motivated by his personal beliefs in
faith, it is essential to take in views of various scholars and focus on the
reign of Aurangzeb as they have perceived:
(i) Aurangzeb: An Emperor maintaining Cordial Ties or The Defender of Islam
(ii) Re-imposition of Jiziya in 1679 and abolishing Hindu Festivals
(iii) Destruction of Temples throughout the reign of Aurangzeb
(i)
Aurangzeb: An Emperor maintaining Cordial Ties or The Defender of Islam
There is no doubt that Aurangzeb was more pious than the ones who ruled before him, as there are instances that he had abstained from all forms of alcohol and opium (as they were prohibited by Islam) and prayed regularly, sewed prayer-caps and studied, and memorized Quran by coping it in his free time.[2] Historians like Athar Ali and Satish Chandra believed otherwise, though Aurangzeb was definitely more orthodox in his personal religious beliefs, however, he rarely led that overpower his political status as an emperor. The Quran stresses upon the need to build a pleasant society on the basis of common points among the persons of different faith and also preaches to ensure security of the worship places of the non-Muslims.[3] Aurangzeb seemed to follow this by not forcing his wife, daughter-in-law and the rest of Rajput women to convert their faith.[4] Audrey Truschke also confirms with the point that as an upholder of Islam, Aurangzeb condemned any ruler who would practice bigotry as according to Shari’at the king is a representative of God on Earth and therefore a king cannot raze God’s prosperous creations. These beliefs could be well reflected from a letter that he had sent to Raja Rana Singh, the Raput ruler of Mewar, 1654.
However scholars like Jadunath Sarkar upon who
Sharma also basis his contentions believes that cordial ties were not respected
by Aurangzeb, as he studied the rebellions in Mewar and Marwar, which were the
result of an ideological conflict. He believed that Aurangzeb wanted to annex
Marwar because his plan of forcible conversion of the Hindus required the
Jaswant’s state should sink into a quiescent dependency or a regular province
of empire. Since both Mewar and Marwar were strategically located in Rajputana,
it further enticed Aurangzeb to take full control over those regions. He
believed that Aurangzeb wanted to deprive Marwar of ‘efficient leadership.’ and
as Jaswant Singh had also been a supporter of Dara Shikoh, Aurangzeb’s policies
against Marwar in 1678 were directed as a punishment to his family. However, a
question arises as to why would Aurangzeb wait for almost two decades to punish
Jaswant Singh for supporting Dara Shikoh? Such a question emphasize the
underlying issue of whether the actions really motivated by personal beliefs?
Contrary to what Sarkar perceived, Jaswant Singh
actually enjoyed the highest mansab in Aurangzeb’s court, thus it
explains that rather than personal or religious reasons, the actions may have
been fueled by politics. As in one of the instances one can see that Aurangzeb
refused Shaikh-ul-Islam’s suggestion to issue a fatwa to do away with
the campaign against a Muslim ruler.[5]
Sarkar further accuses Aurangzeb for not admitting
non-Muslims as administrative officer, however the evidences show otherwise. Aurangzeb
seem to admit a large number of non-Muslims into his administration, and the
admission were purely based on merit and not on religion. When
suggested by an official that he must replace Hindu officers with the Muslims,
he replied, “The religion has nothing to do with the state and worldly affairs…it
is accepted as the merit and rule of the state then the whole of the structure
of the state would change. The king appoints people at any key places and
grants them designations on merit and eligibility and religious interference or
recommendation has nothing to do with it.”[6] Under the reign of
Aurangzeb, the Hindu participation in the elite level increased by 50% and
Hindu occupied about 31.6% of nobility.[7] Marathas enjoyed a mansab
ranks of 5000, Shivaji’s son Shahu was also given mansab ranks of 7000.
Aurangzeb also interacted with various scholars in order to have discourses and
debates, such evidences point otherwise to the conventional belief of Aurangzeb
as a bigot ruler. Nonetheless, the fact that he was a practitioner of Islam is
not being discredited, rather being put through scrutiny against the conventional
historiography.
(ii)
Re-imposition of Jiziya in 1679 and abolishing Hindu Festivals
Aurangzeb is said to appoint Ulema for public censorship, and by 1668, Hindu fairs were outlawed, by 1669, earlier practices which begun from the reign of Akbar, like the jharokha darshan, Tulaadan and Tika Ceremony were banned and lastly in 1679, Jiziya was imposed. As a preacher and practitioner of Islam, Aurangzeb prohibited teaching “wicked science” by the Hindu Gurus and infidel practices.[8] In terms of re-imposition of Jiziya, scholars like Sarkar, SR Sharma are of that view that these policies reflected religious orthodoxy of Aurangzeb and they were implemented solely to suppress the non-Muslims. The underlying factor according to them is that with the exceeding burden of the Jiziya, the non-Muslims will have an incentive to convert into Islam in order to avoid paying Jiziya.
Before one goes onto the debate on whether the Jiziya
was imposed as an act of suppression, it is important to understand what Jiziya
really stood for. It was a progressive tax, imposed on all non-Muslims, often
believed to be a tax paid to the ruler in return of the protection. William
Montgomery Watt perceived that the origin of Jiziya is rather
pre-Islamic in its nature, powerful Arabian tribes would collect Jiziya
as an agreement to protect the weaker neighbours. Agreeing to the view, Yasar
Ali also saw Jiziya as a poll-tax, levied on those who did not
accept Islam, but were living under the protection of Islamic ruler. As already
mentioned, that a group of scholars believe that re-imposition of Jiziya
is rather a reversal of policies, however Chandra points asks why did it
take 22 years after accession to the throne for Aurangzeb to impose Jiziya had
it been purely motivated by religious supremacy? This question brings out a
scope for new scholarly work on the same. Irfan Habib is of the view
that Aurangzeb had actually exempted many poor farmers from the heavy tax
burden, therefore imposing Jiziya should not be simply translated as an
act of religious superiority.
Munis D Faruqi in Religious Interactions in Mughal India, argued that the re-imposition of Jiziya though suited Aurangzeb on religious grounds and facilitated him to rise further on the ladder of Ulema’s good books, it also suited him on the financial grounds. Under Aurangzeb, Jiziya was deposited in a separate treasury known as the khanzanah-i-jiziya.[9] Imposition of Jiziya therefore helped the royal treasury in the times when most of the money from the royal treasuries were spent on expansion and consolidation in the South. Recent scholarship shed light upon the political motifs behind imposing Jiziyah, by 1676, efforts to join hands with Shivaji had gone in vain and it was in that situation when Aurangzeb reimposed Jiziya in order to be backed by the local Muslims of that region. In such circumstances, Jiziya could be interpreted as a war cry and a unifying force of Muslims together.[10] Re-imposition of Jiziya also helped cope up with the immense amount spent in South in terms of the war of succession, and nevertheless, helped in reconciling between the Ulema and the emperor. As Chandra correctly views that reimposition of Jiziya may have benefitted the treasury and even with the help of royal treasury provided employment to many sections of the society, however, the disadvantages of this step outweighed its benefits and highlighted the rather discriminatory nature of the emperor.
Sarkar and Sharma
are of that view that this issue of succession led to rebellion in Raputana, GN
Sharma, however, disagrees and argues that had there been any such
protests, the local annalists would have given minute details of such events
and it would not have gone unnoticed. According to Athar Ali, there is
no doubt that the rebellion broke out in Rajputana, however there is no
evidence to show that Aurangzeb annexed those territories, rather the evidences
show otherwise, the Rajput clan remained loyal throughout with the emperor and
the rebellion did not initiate decline in fortunes of the Rajputs.
In terms of putting a ban on Hindu festivals or as mentioned before “practices of infidels,” it is to be noted that Aurazngzeb, though desired to uphold the laws of shari’at, however, did not ban Hindu festivals because of religious factors. Rather he tried to curb down festivities altogether, he even tried to do away with grand celebrations of major Islamic festivals like Eid-ul-Fitr, Eid-ul-Adha, and even Nauroz and Muharram. He feared that festivals may become an issue against law and order as noted in foreign travel accounts that there have been incidents of violence on festivals like Muharram and Holi. Keeping in mind the safety of all, he issued such orders. No overall ban was imposed on art or music either, as Catherine Butler Brown mentions that it was not a ‘ban’ rather a prohibition of such performative arts in the presence of emperor for his personal renunciation.[11]
The new findings in fact point out that there were more musical
treaties than ever being composed in the reign of Aurangzeb, from the letters
he wrote, it could be seen that he was well read in literature and bore
references from Sadi, Hafiz, Rumi and thus it is surreal to believe that there
had been a ban over art or literature. He not only supported imperial library,
but also donated large sums for preservation of manuscripts. If one considers
ban on practices like Jharokha
Darshan, tulaadan, etc. as reversal policies, one needs to
understand that such ceremonies were paid off by imperial patronage, and
banning them was not a mean of religious suppression, rather a tactical way to
change the course of royal patronage’s expenditure on expansion and
consolidation in the South.
(iii)
Destruction
of Temples throughout the reign of Aurangzeb
According to Sarkar and Sharma, destruction of temple carried out under the reign of Aurangzeb proved that he was discriminatory towards non-Muslim subjects, it proved his bigoted feelings, which in reality justifies Sharma’s comment on Aurangzeb. Evidences of temple destruction of the Keshavanath temple in Mathura. Vishwanath temple in Benaras, and throughout the Rajputana were pointed out by them. An edict in the name of Aurangzeb was issued that prohibited construction of Hindu temples as well as maintenance of the old ones.[12] Aurangzeb also issued orders to governors to destroy temples and schools to prohibit teaching.[13] Similar incidents can also be found cited by Ishwari Prasad where the order was issued to destroy Hindu schools and temples in Benaras and Mithra. However, the structures of Hindu temples in Delhi, Agra, and in the South point otherwise, they are the living testimony of his religious tolerance.[14]
Audrey Truschke provides the evidence of farman of February 1659, where the emperor has asked to extend protection to the Hindu religious groups, especially the Brahmins and religious men. He also issued a farman to the Umanand Temple at Guwahati to confirm the land grants. Jagirs were commonly granted to the non-Muslim religious institutions and special actions were taken to protect the Hindus and Jains under emperor’s rule. Evidences of Jain religious institutions that received help from the emperor can be found from Shatrunjaya, Girnar, and Mount Abu. Aurangzeb not only protected the temples, but also took care of its maintenance and well being of the people whose livelihoods depend on the temple. He had carried out a strong military expedition to the South, which offered plentiful of temples that could have been destroyed by him, but South remains almost untouched in terms of temple desecration. [15]
According to Richard Eaton the act of temple desecration could not be seen separately from the political motifs, it is rather more political in nature than as a tool to prove one’s religious superiority. Richard Davis and Eaton are of the same belief that the act of destruction of temple to establish political superiority had been prevalent from the ancient period, which was further adopted in the Turkish invasion and carried on to the Mughal rule. The temples play an important role in consolidating political authority in South Asian history as they are the often the symbol of sovereignty of the king kuladevata, which is why kings often patronize a specific temple and sect to establish his own power and which gives new rulers the motive to destroy the royal house of the state to establish new rule.[16] Instances of Pallava king Narasimhavarman attacked the Chalukyas and destroyed their royal temple. Another instance that Audrey Truschke quotes from the Brihatsamhita, which makes it clear that if a temple is destroyed, then it is considered that a kingdom has been destroyed, thus pointing out that desecration of temples were purely political in nature. Thus, it is clear that the Hindus had targeted one another’s temples and destroyed images of Shiva, Vishnu, etc. and erected their deities to legitimize their power; Aurangzeb seemed to follow the suit to legitimate his power by destroying the formers and erecting mosques, rather than practicing bigotry.[17]
To prove the point of political motive behind the destruction of
temple, Eaton provides certain instances where it becomes amply clear that the
actions are taken place solely due to political reasons. As the Mughals were
defeated by the Ahoms and were unable to annex new territories in Assam, this
was followed by destruction of the chief temples patronized by the Ahom rulers
as a weapon for suppressing the Ahoms, politically. Another instance is from
the destruction of Vishwanath temple, as it was built by Jai Singh, who
allegedly helped in Shivaji’s escape. Similarly, several temples throughout the
Rajputana were destroyed as a result of the Marwar and Mewar rebellions, as
they went against the rule.[18]
It is therefore clear, that it was not a matter of personal religious bigotry that led to destruction of temples, rather the selective temple desecration was a result of political action that the emperor had simply replicated from the tradition that had been going on in the subcontinent for so long, so to secure the legitimacy of its rule and political order.
Aurangzeb’s personal choice to practice Islam and follow it in the
lines of orthodoxy to be in the good books of Ulema is undeniable, however one needs to study his
reign in a wider context to understand political factors which have motivated
for implementation of certain policies. Saqi Mustaid Khan’s Maasir-I Alamgiri although provides instances of temple destruction,
however the numbers are exaggerated to suit the author’s taste, thus revision
of historical facts becomes essential in order to form an understanding.[19]
It is thus amply clear that the attitude of Aurangzeb towards state was not
motivated by personal faith, rather his active involvement in politics led to
the decisions.
[1] Aniket T C. Unravelling the Myth:
Exploring State and Religion under Aurangzeb. Glob J Arch & Anthropol. 2018,
p. 1
[2] Ibid,
p. 2
[3] Mahmood,
Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Irfan Ahamd, and Hafiz Adil Jahangir. “Aurangzeb
Alamgir on inter faith harmony: An analysis of objections.” Journal of
Islamic Thought and Civilization 9, no.2 (2019), p. 299, 300
[4] Ibid,
p. 307
[5] Aniket T C. Unravelling the Myth:
Exploring State and Religion under Aurangzeb. Glob J Arch & Anthropol.
2018, p. 4
[6] Mahmood,
Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Irfan Ahamd, and Hafiz Adil Jahangir. “Aurangzeb
Alamgir on inter faith harmony: An analysis of objections.” Journal of
Islamic Thought and Civilization 9, no.2 (2019), p. 308
[7] Aniket T C. Unravelling the Myth:
Exploring State and Religion under Aurangzeb. Glob J Arch & Anthropol.
2018, p. 3
[8] Pritchett,
W. Frances, Aurangzeb, Columbia.edu., http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_15.html,
retrieved on 9.11.2020
[9] Aniket T C. Unravelling the Myth:
Exploring State and Religion under Aurangzeb. Glob J Arch & Anthropol.
2018, p. 2
[10] Ibid,
p. 2
[11] Ibid,
p. 2
[12] Lal, Vinay,
Aurangzeb: Religious Policies, The Mughal Empire, South Asia UCLA.edu, http://southasia.ucla.edu/history-politics/mughals-and-medieval/aurangzeb/religious-policies/,
retrieved on 9.11.2020
[13] Pritchett,
W. Frances, Aurangzeb, Columbia.edu., http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_15.html,
retrieved on 9.11.2020
[14] Mahmood,
Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Irfan Ahamd, and Hafiz Adil Jahangir. “Aurangzeb
Alamgir on inter faith harmony: An analysis of objections.” Journal of
Islamic Thought and Civilization 9, no.2 (2019), p. 305
[15] Truschke,
Audrey, “Overseer of Hindu Religious Communities.” The Man and the Myth,
Penguin, 2017, p. 84, 87
[16] Aniket T C. Unravelling the Myth:
Exploring State and Religion under Aurangzeb. Glob J Arch & Anthropol.
2018, p. 4
[17] Truschke,
Audrey, “Overseer of Hindu Religious Communities.” The Man and the Myth,
Penguin, 2017, p. 88, 89
[18] Aniket T C. Unravelling the Myth:
Exploring State and Religion under Aurangzeb. Glob J Arch & Anthropol.
2018, p. 5
[19] Truschke,
Audrey, “Overseer of Hindu Religious Communities.” The Man and the Myth,
Penguin, 2017, p. 87
Comments
Post a Comment