Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 15th, 2008, 03:47 PM   #1
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 11
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: 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. 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
mughal is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 16th, 2008, 02:59 AM   #2
Academician
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 77
Re: Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler Or Bad History? .


Wasn't the real problem with Aurangzeb the constant warring - including the 27-year war with the Hindu Marathas, which ultimately bled the Mughal Empire to death (in part because Aurangzeb's successors were far less effective rulers)?

I notice Mike Davis, in his anti-British polemic Late Victorian Holocausts, praises Aurangzeb and the Mughals for his famine relief policies, although if one reads, say, Abraham Eraly, he claims there were huge death tolls from famine in 1631/2, 1661/2, throughout the aforementioned war and also in 1702/04. What's the truth here?
Tynesider is offline  
Old March 18th, 2011, 11:35 AM   #3
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 336

Quote:
Originally Posted by mughal View Post
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
Congratulations. You have proven that your just a crazy muslim cleric that is trying to cover up the crimes of the most brutal tryant of india.
KunaltheGreat is offline  
Old March 18th, 2011, 03:25 PM   #4

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 6,518

Quote:
Originally Posted by mughal View Post
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.
Sorry, but the above is complete nonsense. Aurangzeb, at best, was an unhinged loon. Take the incident with Dara Sikhoh for example- its true that Aurangzeb was the usurper and Dara was the deposed crown prince, but the way he treated Dara: marched him straight to Delhi, while Aurangzeb personally lashed him with cat-o-nine-tails ( a sharp flail device which takes off small bits of flesh everytime it is used on the body), then beheaded him, put his head on a dinner plate,covered it with dinner tray lid and presented it to his father (Shah Jahan, deposed and held under house arrest) as a gift.
That is the conduct of a total madman, period.

Quote:
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.
India has not been ruled by muslims for a thousand years. Parts of India had been ruled by Muslims for over a thousand years, but nothing significant till much later: Sindh was ruled by muslims since 800 CE or so and it is mostly muslim. Punjab had a significant amount of time ruled by muslims: from 1200s onwards at the least and was almost muslim majority (that is, if you count Punjab, Pakistan Punjab, Haryana as the old domains of Punjab). Bengal became a muslim majority and sections of UP (Awadh) had significant muslim population.

The areas that had little or no muslim population, such as Rajasthan, Central India & Southern India, were never really consolidated under Muslim rule.
Rajputana, Malwa, Gujarat,etc. did not come under Muslim rule till Akbar's rule and even then, it was nominal. Maharastra did not come under significant muslim rule- the bahamani sultanate were too busy fighting amongst itself (the five fiefs of Bahamanis) and did nothing meaningful in policies anyways, so nothing happened. The Nizams of Hyderabad,Mysore kingdom, etc. proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Muslim rulers in India mostly had a clear pro-conversion policy, sometimes indirectly through financial incentives, sometimes at sword-point.

India is a huge region in population- stretching from the Kandahar-Kabul region to Burma, inhabited by a quarter of the world's population in the last millenia. The reason Turko-Arab muslims failed to completely convert India is because India had a thoroughly established tradition of intellectual, scientific and spiritual persuits *AND* it had a population that dwarfed that of the muslim world a millenia ago. The reason Persia, Egypt, etc. got converted is because they did not have the huge population like India to counter the Muslims with. Despite this, 40% of India became Muslim (Pakistan & Bangladesh were India before religion-based partition).
This is remarkably successful, when one factors in the fact that Turko-Arab muslims were probably outnumbered 50:1 by Indians over the last millenia

Quote:
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.
History is chock-full of such inconsistencies, because in politics, only one rule applies: 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. The hindu who would help the fanatic muslim subjugate the hindus is a valuable asset to the muslim fanatic, just like Jews who would rat out other jews to the Nazis were kept alive and well fed by the Nazis.

Quote:
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."
Nothing extraordinary about it: The Ottomans appointed some Greeks to the treasury and many such other examples abound: when it comes to the treasury, only a total fool would appoint anyone but the most competent person for the job, since the entire government's ability to function rests critically on the efficient management of the treasury.

Quote:
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?
Its called collaboration. Do look it up. Virtually every subject population has had parts of the nobility collaborate with the 'invading barbarians'. The scots did it (collaborated with the English), so did the Irish, Indians, etc.- there were plenty of German lords who were collaborating with Napoleon, etc.
Besides in the case of Ram Singh, who was tasked with annexing the Ahom kingdom, Aurangzeb held his family hostage to make sure Ram Singh did not defect

Quote:
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.
Quite factual, since Portuguese & Dutch records from the era of Aurangzeb, where they did have contact with India, categorically states Aurangzeb to've razed numerous temples- a fact that is also corroborrated by the records of the maratha empire.

As far as 'strict adherers to Islam' goes, it doesn't mean anything. There are strict adherers to Islam who will argue for other's right to remain non-muslim, while there are 'strict adherers to Islam' who will go suicide-bomb anything to do with non-muslims.
There are plenty of mullahs who are very well versed in the koran, who call for jihad, murder, torture, etc. because the Koran allows itself to be interpreted such a way.


Quote:
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."
Actually, that comment was one of the few examined by Sir Mortimer Wheeler, the chief of Archeological survey of India at that time and found to be a fake- I happen to've seen the document Sir Wheeler wrote with his own hand, housed in the State Archaeological Museum in Kolkata.


Quote:
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.
Again, there have been plenty of rulers who have pandered to the populist sites such as major religious/historic sites, while tearing down numerous community churches, temples and sites that are not so famous. Its called politics and PR. Happens all the time.
When Iranian fanatics caused the revolution in Iran, they took down over 70 Zoroastrian fire temples, some dating back from pre-Sassanian times. Yet, they did not touch the fire temple at Yazd , which was one of the two major 'Meccas' of Zoroastrianism. Coincidence ?
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
aurangzeb, bad, emperor, mughal, ruler


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Greatest Roman Emperor? Jlaymon2 Ancient History 52 April 19th, 2011 11:31 AM
Most ruthless English Ruler? Commander General History 14 January 16th, 2009 11:12 AM
Insignia of Emperor Maxentius unearthed fire_of_sekhmet Ancient History 1 December 5th, 2006 08:33 AM
Pizarro executes last Incan emperor Commander American History 3 September 5th, 2006 10:15 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.