Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

muqawwee123 · February 28, 2012, 6:55pm

I was reading this article in favour of most controversial and most condemned Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.

Mughal Emperor Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir : Bad Ruler or Bad History?

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.

Hindus holding high positions during Aurangzeb

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.

**
Demolision of Hindu temples Vs grant of rights**

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. **

**
Imposition of Jizya on Non-Muslims**

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition ofthe 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.
**
Muslims paying more than Non-Muslims

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 Auranzeb’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.

Interesting points and showing us a different picture. Whats your view on this.

LucyMay · February 28, 2012, 11:41pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

Hmm interesting. It is true that most Indians, at least from where I come from (=Maharashtra), regard Aurangzeb as evil. These same people, however, have respect for other Mughal emperors like Akbar.
The reason is because of his intolerance towards other religions. Another factor is because in the state of Maharashtra, the Maratha king Shivaji has God-like status in many households, and is regarded as many as their saviour from oppressive Mughal rule.
Shivaji - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After Shivaji died, his son Sambhaji was crowned the king. The Marathas were in constant war against the Mughals. Aurangzeb caught Sambhaji and asked him to convert to Islam. Sambhaji refused, and was tortured to death, his body cut into pieces and thrown away so that religious rites could not be performed on his dead body. People from Maharashtra have not forgiven Aurangzeb’s treatment of the son of their beloved king Shivaji, so most people still regard Aurangzeb as the villain.

Btw interestingly I tried searching for the historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee, and could find no info on him from the first few pages of google search. All websites that showed up in the results just include a quote to the same sentence attributed to him “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…” I wonder if this person is real!

Southie · February 29, 2012, 1:48am

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

While I do not know the details of Sambhaji's death/torture etc, the history books we read were not kind to Aurangazeb. That is all I know.

muqawwee123 · February 29, 2012, 5:26am

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

True no further information is available online for Mr Banerjee. Here is another article supporting tolerance of Aurangzeb

**
Lives of two Mughal princes, Dara Shikoh and his younger brother Aurangzeb, sons of emperor Shah Jahan, have been distorted by historians, a Pakistani-American scholar has said.
**

Munis Faruqui, assistant professor at the South and Southeast Asian Studies Department of the University of California, Berkeley, has presented a unique side to the brothers, in a discourse titled “New perspectives on the Mughals: The case of Dara Shikoh”.

Faruqui discussed at length the two brothers’ relationship, religious views and their bitter struggle over political control of the culturally and economically rich empire, Dawn News reported.

Focusing on the fact that neither of the brothers were “saints” or “devils”, Faruqui said Dara had a deep interest in Sufism, and also attempted to find common language between Islam and Hinduism.

Not able to find the answers he was looking for, Dara went on to study the Upanishads, the philosophical texts considered an early source of Hindu religion, he said. The Mughal prince came to the conclusion that the “hidden book” mentioned in the Quran was none other than the Upanishads and believed that in order to understand the Quran, one needed to study the Hindu text. Dara even drew an equation between Adam and Brahma – a view which, according to historians, branded him as a heretic and ultimately led to his execution.

Faruqui explored the relationship the “misunderstood” brothers shared and their struggle for the throne.

He said that while Dara almost never left the safety of the Mughal court, Aurangzeb was a skilled warrior – a fact evident in the battleground where Aurangzeb triumphed over his brother.

**Faruqui said that contrary to general perception, Aurangzeb cultivated even those who disagreed with him.He was tolerant of other faiths and enjoyed strong military and political support from Muslims as well as non-Muslims, the professor said.
**

“Ultimately, it was nothing more or less than Dara’s ability to antagonise friend and foe alike, compared to Aurangzeb’s unequalled ability to paper over
differences that enabled one prince to ascend the throne, while consigning the other to the grave,” Faruqui said.

Dara Shikoh, Aurangzeb misunderstood: Pakistani-American expert

muqawwee123 · February 29, 2012, 4:39pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

Which place has been shown in the video?

muqawwee123 · February 29, 2012, 4:49pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

Aurangzeb and reasons behind demolition of Mandir & Masjids by Dr. B. N. Pande

After critical examination of the farmans of Mughal emperors scholars like Tarapada Mukherjee, Irfan Habib and B.N. Pande have opined that Mughal rulers issued land grants for the maintenance of Hindu temples. The aforesaid first two scholars have studied the farmans of Akbar,Jahangir and Shah Jehan and have showed that these rulers had issu -ed land to temples particularly in Vrindabana, Aritha and Mathura. Dr. B.N. Pande on the other hand undertook the study of the farmans of Aurangzeb and paid attention to the religious policy of Tipu Sultan. Dr. Pande was nice enough to deliver two lectures on the themes “Farmans of Aurangzeb And Other Mughal Emperors” and “Tipu: An Evaluation of His Religious Policy” under the auspices of the Institute of the Objective Studies at the Academic Staff College, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi on the 17th and 18th November 1993 respectively. In the first paper Dr. Pande has stated, after a critical examination and analysis of the farmans of Aurangzeb collected from various parts of the Indian sub contin -ent, that the Mughal Emperor **Aurangzeb had issued jagirs and cash gifts for the maintenance of temples namely Someshwar Nath Mahadev Temple situated at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna at Allahabad. Mahakaleshwara Temple situated at Ujjain, Balaji Temple at Chitrakut, Umananda Temple at Gauhati and the Jain Temple of Shatrunjal and other Temples and Gurudwaras scattered over northern India. **

Dr. Pande has cited instances, which show** that Aurangzeb ordered destruction of temples and mosques and the mention may be made of Vishvanath Temple at Varanasi and the Jama Masjid at Golkunda. But the reasons have to be viewed and investigated in proper historical perspective. The aforesaid temple had become the centre of conspiracy against the state and similar was the case with the mosque as highlighted by Dr Pande.** On further investigation, it is reported that Aurangzeb had ordered raid of the temple in order to rescue women members of the family of a Minister of Rajasthan who had gone there on pilgrimage. The ruler of Golkunda after collecting revenue of the state, did not pay his dues to the Empirial Authority at Delhi. He buried this Khazana and erected a Jama Masjid over it. When Aurangzeb came to know of it, he ordered the demolition of the mosque. Dr. Pande refuted the charge against Aurangzeb that he was an anti-Hindu monarch and had established that Aurangzeb did not make any distinction between temples and mosques so far as state administration was concerned. Thus Dr. Pande has thrown new light on the role, character and personality of one of the brightest of the Mughal rulers.

Aurangzeb And Tipu Sultan: Evaluation of their religious policies

mAd_ScIeNtIsT · February 29, 2012, 5:29pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

It's amusing how much religion has always been hijacked for political gain in the subcontinent's history.

In the war between the "Muslim Hero" Aurengzeb and the "Hindu Hero" Shivaji, Aurengzeb's army included Hindu generals and Shivaji's army included Muslim generals.

muqawwee123 · February 29, 2012, 5:32pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

But can we say that war between Aurangzeb and Shiva Ji was on account of religious matters?

the_kaur · March 1, 2012, 10:17am

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

Varanasi/Benaras, the resident Sarfaraz Qamar is talking about “Bharat Milap” and his hand-loom is working of famous Benaras Silk Sarees:wub:, the ancient town known for Shiv Bhakts, Bum Bum Bhole:k:

Shivaji was first Hindu Nationalist, who was pioneer in the India of Hindu Rashtra, his ideology was simple, A hindu majority country ruled by Hindu values, hence by default he was in contention against Mughal, Chankya would have been proud of him, his tactics especially the speed and concentrated attack on Mughal forces made Emperor Aurangzeb refer him as “Pahari Chuha”, another legend who created an empire out of nothing. He mainly employed Guerrilla tactics with deception, trickery as primary strategic techniques

the_kaur · March 1, 2012, 1:20pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

Even if a temple or mosque becomes a seat of conspiracy, it is insane to demolish entire building rather than finding the culprit, Mosque was erected in the place of old Vishwanath temple while no temple was erected at the site of any demolished mosque, the other destruction took place was as Shri Krishn janamsthan where mosque stand till present day was done by his orders. Imposing Jiziya on Hindu majority country itself is not tolerant, why majority should pay any special tax however less just because ruler is from minority? Aurangzeb's bigotry is part of entire Indian cultural folklore in Indian Punjab and around Kashi-Varanasi area!

muqawwee123 · March 1, 2012, 1:24pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

But looking at his actions of giving Hindus higher official places and donations to many temples, can we say that his bigotry was not religious, but of political nature?

the_kaur · March 1, 2012, 1:59pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

Even Modi's inaction was for political reason, overall even Muslim Gujratis have prospered in more than 10 years rule and he even did many sadbhawana fasts including one in Godhra. Can he can be termed as secular?? Even the concocted story of Raane of Cutch being dishonored is unverifiable?? Before battle of Chamkaur he took oath in the name of one god and allah as withness and then attacked retreating army killing all 39 of Khalsa soldiers including his two sons, survived and secured by two Pathan soldiers:), his bigotry was not only against non muslims but also against Sufi barelvi and shias as well, as I wrote before that my shia syed landlady told many Shias raised their children as Sunnis to avoid his persecution, these thing are alive in Kanpur local folklore.

Faris_Udeen · March 1, 2012, 2:59pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

My thoughts precisely.

With regards to the question my view is that for the times in which he lived Aurangzeb was not a bad ruler but niether was he perfect.

I think History judges him on differet levels depending on belief but as a person, he was a very interesting man with a ruthless ambition but in those days most rulers were just as savage and some were a lot worse.

muqawwee123 · March 1, 2012, 3:37pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

The man is still controversial. On one hand there are people like Mufti Zarwali who consider him like a saint and on other side he is most hated and symbol of intolerance. Just came across this video about an painting exhibition in India against Aurangzeb’s act, which could not run due to interference by police.

muqawwee123 · March 1, 2012, 4:19pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

A detailed article answering the question about Aurangzeb relationship with Shiva Ji, his affiliation with music (as per article he used to write poetry in Hindi) and had darbari musicians.

http://islamicvoice.com/September2006/DebunkingMyths/
**
Extracts from the Article**

It was British trained historian Jadunath Sarkar who concocted the theory of Aurangzeb being anti-Shia while interpreting his assault on Deccani Muslim kingdoms.

Aurangzeb was born to Mumtaz Mahal, a Shia wife of Shah Jehan. His uncle (mamoo) Shayasta Khan was Shia and a very important commander of army. His another notable commander Mir Jumla was also Shia. Other important Shia commanders such as Ruhullah Bakshi al Mumalik and Mir Atish belonged to the Iranian Safavi family.

Aurangzeb married his son Azam Shah with Princess Shehar Bano of Bijapur Kingdom. She was a Shia. Aurangzeb’s eldest son Mohammad Sultan was married to princess of Qutb Shahi king who was also a Shia. With such interwining kinship ties with Shias, it is inconceivable that Aurangzeb could think of taking upon certain kingdom merely because they were headed by Shias.

It all boils down to the fact that Aurangzeb’s assault on Deccan Muslim kingdoms was motivated by political reasons rather than any enmity with Shias.

**
Aurangzeb and local culture**

the_kaur · March 1, 2012, 5:44pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

From father’s side Aurangzeb was descendent of Timurid and Hindu Rajpoots, even had Hindu genral Mirza Raja Jai Singh who only lost one campaign,against Assam but never favoured Hinduism ever. He was known for taking not a single penny from his treasury for personal expenditure, named by many sunnis as Zinda Peer and role model of King (even though he imprisoned his own father:) ). Shaista Khan was a brave commander who took on Shivaji in his own territory and captured Pune and started living Shivaji’s palace, the master of deception, Shivaji raided and while escaping Shaista lost his three fingers, Aurangzeb trasferred him to Bengal. Sometimes Shivaji had two threats Mughals and Adil Shah empire of Bijapur.

India is the country of most sensitive people with maximum sensibilities, freedom of expression is right to tell people what they don’t want to listen, it should be allowed unless it causes immediate death of people like causing stampede. Our problem is not what Aurangzeb was but mosquitoes are:D

muqawwee123 · March 1, 2012, 5:51pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

freedom of expression is right to tell people what they don’t want to listen

the_kaur · March 1, 2012, 5:57pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

This is my personal view, dont expect a JAT (Just Animal Type:D) to have very high IQ, 16*2=8 that is why we are Jat:D

muqawwee123 · March 1, 2012, 6:07pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

From Jat, I remember, when were discussing Arabs and their contacts in Sindh, we read that Arabs recruited some people from Sindh and those people were called Jat.

the_kaur · March 1, 2012, 6:27pm

Re: Aurangzeb - Bad ruler or Bad History

Scythian tribes entered during the reign of Indo-Greek king Menander, Mostly we were tribal by nature before Gurus came, None of the gurus were Jats but majority of followers were Jat. British recruited them in highest number, Jats are the most enrolled people in military, highest gallantry awards winner from Indian side. Dharmender and family is Jat:)
During school days people used to call me Just Animal Type:D,including my another beautiful senior Sushmita Sen I used to get pissed off and later I realized Right to freedom of expression is to tell what people don't want to listen, Now 16*2=8 THATS Y V R JAT is the sticker that I use on the rear glass of my car:D