Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?
Posted: 9 Jamad-ul-awwal 1427, 5 June 2006
on http://www.albalagh.net
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 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.
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
Link
No comments:
Post a Comment