HOI 7 ASSIGNMENT

Aurangzeb ascended the Mughal throne in 1658 after having emerged victorious in a bloody
succession war against his brothers and having imprisoned his father- Shahjahan.
He sought to justify these by military successes. His unpopular actions
emphasised on Islamic character of the state and a new religious policy was inaugurated to cre
ate a halo around the imperial crown. Attempts were made to
Associate the Muslim orthodoxy as closely as possible with the empire in order to ensure form
al legitimacy for his rule. Aurangzeb ruled the Mughal empire for 49 years, a period during
which the empire reached its territorial zenith extending far south into the valleys of the
Karnataka region and even penetrating eastwards into the territories ruled by ahoms.

However, the legacy of Aurangzeb till date is primarily of a ruler whose bigotry was considered
responsible for undermining the liberal social order established by Akbar and maintained by the
likes of Jahangir and Shahjahan. Aurangzeb’s zeal for Islamic orthodoxy is understood to have
inaugurated a period of tyrannical oppression of the Hindu subjects of the Mughal empire; this
discontentment of the Hindus expressing itself through a series of ‘Hindu’ rebellions like those
of jats,satnamis,marathas and rathores. The assessment of whether Aurangzeb was indeed a
religious bigot or was there more to his statecraft than mere love for Islamic orthodoxy is
extremely crucial for understanding his piety and politics.

Aurangzeb's reign is shrouded in controversy. The opinions of scholars is sharply divided

especially on matters pertaining to religion. There are essentially three main categories of
scholars: a) Jadunath Sarkar, S.R. Sharma find Aurangzeb, guilty of religious bigotry and
persecution, Shibli Nomani, Zahiruddin Faruki justify most of Aurangzeb's actions as political
expedients, Satish Chandra and M. Athar Ali, attempt a "neutral" analysis of. Aurangzeb's
policies. Prof. Athar Ali has divided Aurangzeb’s period into two halves in his book ‘The Mughal
nobility under Aurangzeb’. From his accession to 1669 and from 1670 to his death,1707. In the
first half Aurangzeb’s persecution of hindus was minimal,as a matter of fact some of the Hindus
got very high posts in this period. In the second half, he became an orthodox man inorder to
impress the ulemas due to political failures.

Aurangzeb took certain measures with regards to his religious affairs and constrained certain
festivities, these are believed to be mainly pro Islamic rather than anti hindu. For instance,he
believed that the occasion of nauroz or the Persian new year was un-islamic as well as a threat
to public order and thus abolished it. Furthermore, he issued a series of decrees which included
withdrawal of imperial patronage from certain practices like official history writing and music.
Aurangzeb forbade the kalima (Islamic confession of faith) from being stamped on his coins so
that the holy words will not be defiled by the non believers. Additionally, it is also believed that
Aurangzeb ceased appearing for jharokha darshans, and even stopped the practice of tuladan.
In his personal life, Aurangzeb was more pious than his predecessors as he abstained from all
forms of alcohol and opium, prayed regularly and sewed prayer-caps and copied the Quran by
hand in his free time. A Censor of Morals (Muhktasib) was appointed "to enforce the Prophet's
Laws and put down the practices forbidden by Him". All these contributed in creating an aura
around Aurangzeb as a puritan and an Islamic bigot who strove to establish a socio-religious
order based on the principles of Islamic orthodoxy with no space for anything not permissible in
the Islamic order. These measures reflect Aurangzeb's Islamic concern and zeal for reforms in
the Islamic character.

Aurangzeb tried to curb and ban the public celebration of hindu festivals like holi and Diwali on
the grounds that these festivals had a tendency of creating a law and order problem for the
state.Similarly, Muharram, processions of the Shias were also stopped for the same reason.
Aurangzeb forbade the court musicians to perform before him "as he had no liking for pleasure,
and neither had time for amusement. Gradually music was totally forbidden at court". On the
other hand, qaubat (the royal band) was retained. Catherine butler brown suggests that the
‘ban’ on music was more of a personal renunciation and was not forced upon the connoisseurs.
Aurangzeb further believed the official history writings of the Mughal to be too many and thus
commissioned a compilation of a compendium which is called fatwa-i-alamgiri. He was well
read and encouraged religious learning therefore it seems unlikely for him to ban
literature,withdrawal of patronage to qasidagos and panegyrists seems more plausible.

Aurangzeb legitimized his claim to the Mughal throne on grounds of his adherence to orthodoz
islam. His wrongful imprisonment of his father and execution of his brother for heresy was
presented as him taking up the responsibility for restoring peace in islam. Thus, he felt it was
essential for him to demonstrate his commitment to precepts of Islam in the first part of his
reign. The prohibitions in celebrating festivals, practicing of music and literature traditions gave
the impression that they were a part of his public persona which was strictly conforming to
Islamic principles as an attempt to associate muslim orthodoxy (ulamas) to formally legitimize
his rule.

The major ordinance which could be considered to have been issued to hit the Hindus directly
as a matter of "state" policy throughout the Mughal Empire was the desecration of hindu
temples. Historians like Jadunath Sarkar and S.R. Sharma have used the notion of temple
desecration to vilify Aurangzeb. According to them, Aurangzeb’s bigotry and anti-Hindu nature
expressed itself in ‘wanton acts of temple desecration’.

It is stated in the Shariat that the old temples are to be destroyed and to construct a new
temple, the permission of the emperor is necessary. In 1670, a farman was issued that all
temples constructed in Orissa "during the last 10 or 12 years should be demolished without
delay" Some of the important temples destroyed during Aurangzeb's reign were the
Vishwanath temple of Banaras, the Keshav Rai temple of Mathura and the "second temple of
Somnath". In 1644, he had destroyed the recently built temple of Chintaman at Ahmedabad by
killing a cow in it and then turned this building into a mosque". The case of Mathura temple is
interesting. This temple was built by Bir Singh Bundela who had gained Jahangir's favour for
slaying Abul Fazl (1602). Jahangir had let this temple remain undisturbed but Aurangzeb
converted it into a large mosque and the name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad.
Understanding of temple desecration places it within a much larger context associated with
political needs of states, rather than as an ideological weapon attacking hindus. Several
instances have been reported in history when non-Muslim subjects of the Mughal emperors
engaged in open rebellion, the state resorted to principles of ‘selective’ temple desecration,
targeting particularly those temples that were clearly associated with the rebel . Therefore,
selective temple desecration appears to be a potent political action that Mughal emperors
including Aurangzeb adopted to denounce the legitimacy of those who posed a threat to the
political order.

On the other hand, Aurangzeb was known for having discourses with the Bairagi saint
Mangaldas Maharaj whom he also gave large grants . Aurangzeb renewed the land grants of
several temples at Mathura, Allahabad, Brindavan. In 1687, the emperor gave land to build
houses for ‘pious Brahmins and fakirs’. In 1691, he conferred eight villages and substantial tax-
free land to support the Balaji temple Aurangzeb enacted similar policies towards the Jains as
well granting land at Shatrunjaya, Girnar and Mount Abu in the late 1650s. He also gave lavish
gifts to a sikh gurudwara in Dehradun.

These indicate that despite Aurangzeb’s claims of being the protector of Islam and
implementing the Sharia in matters of state, as far as functioning of the government is
concerned Aurangzeb did not deviate from the established Mughal traditions of governance. He
kept relying on an ethnically, linguistically and religiously diverse nobility for the smooth
functioning of his administration.

One of Aurangzeb’s most debated and controversial policy was his re-imposition of the jizyah in
1679 which was primarily a tax that was levied on the non-Muslim populace. This act of
Aurangzeb has puzzled many modern scholars. Examining the logic behind this action Saqi Mustaid
Khan argues that Aurangzeb’s desire to uphold the sharia and suppress the infidels forced him
to allow the imposition of jizyah. Some like Jadunath Sarkar see it as a clear case of bigotry in
tune with the temple destruction. But Satish Chandra links it up with the Deccan problem
(Golkunda, Bijapur and Marathas) and says that the Emperor was in a deep political crisis and in
order to win the support of the Muslims, especially the orthodox group. The financial crisis
could not be responsible for its imposition as the income from jizya was insignificant.
In Aurangzeb’s reign, the money obtained from jizyah was deposited in a separate treasury
called the ‘ khazanah-i-jizyah’. The proceeds from which were to be given as charity to
members of the learned class and to theologians. The officials who were charged with the
responsibility of looking after this treasury were all staffed from the ulema class.
Some authors have argued that for the Ulama this was a badge of the inferior status of the hind
us and superior status of Ulama, the upholders of the true faith in the state. The problem with
jaziya arrived when Hindus objected with the way it was collected. The Amins were appointed
in every province, they used to go from house to house in the villages, to collect the tax, and
while paying, they were abused.

The imposition of jizyah and the privileges accorded to the Islamic clerical classes in collection
of jizyah can easily be proofs of the differential attitude of the emperor towards the ulema.
However, Aurangzeb’s policies make it very clear that he did not like the interference of the
ulema in matters of statecraft. For instance, the ulema was always critical of the assimilation of
Hindus to high ranks with the Mughal administration and they were the most vocal opponents
of the Mughal policy of entering matrimonial alliances with the Rajputs. Under Akbar, Hindus
constituted 22.5% of all Mughal nobles. Between 1679-1707 Aurangzeb increased Hindu
participation at the elite levels of the Mughal state by nearly 50%, This ‘Hindu’ section included
large number of Rajputs, Marathas as well as other sectarian groups. Not only were they
appointed within the administration, but they were also given high mansabs. On the
contrary,Aurangzeb gave an order in 1670, that all Hindu accountants were to be replaced by
Muslim accountants,this was opposed by the nobles because the khatris and the kayastas, who
used to occupy these places, were very efficient and experienced people who were well versed
in the local language.

In reply to a petition demanding withdrawal of Persians from high ranks,Aurangzeb stated that
religion should be kept away from worldly affairs and administration should be vested in men
of ability irrespective of their religious affiliations. Thus, this shows that Aurangzeb did not
depart from established Mughal practices in matters of statecraft and if the views of the ulema
were clashing with his own, he always gave precedence to the latter over the former.

Though several of his actions including the imposition of jizyah, the desecration of temples,
banning of music have all been interpreted as part of his attempts to organize a state based on
Islamic tenets where a conscious policy was followed to alienate Hindus,it has been argued that
these were activities were resorted to maintain Aurangzeb’s political authority.
Aurangzeb’s policies were not solely determined by religion or the Ulama. Similar to the other
Mughal rulers, he made policies that suited him and at times overlooked religion for his own be
nefit, clearly putting himself above the state.