Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler Or Bad History?
07-02-2008
Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857
CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu
writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was
anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against
them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their
religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government
approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e.,
after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who
was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant,
competent, and far-sighted.
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. 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 fifty 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 in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh,
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 fourteen
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.
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." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun 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 that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.
Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya
(Introduction to History) used in Bengal 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 textbook reads: "During the fifty 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 fifty year reign and observed that every one was
free to serve and worship God in his own way.
Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition of the 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 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 paid sadaqah, fitrah, and
khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact,
the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims.
Further to Aurangzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this
fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath
Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during
Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished,
which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state
treasury.
While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic
accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record
straight.
By Dr. Habib Siddiqui
Submitted by a Mujahid