1

Myths about Mughal Dynasty

“A nation without history is nation that is blind, for it is knowledge of history that helps guide
towards the future.

A nation without history is a nation without identity, only able to produce hordes and crowds
that meander aimlessly through the passage of life.

If a nation fails to appreciate its leading figures, but instead appreciates its vile figures, it
becomes a nation of vile hordes.”-unknown
Preamble
Muslim Rulers in the Indian Subcontinent: Debunking some myths through the lens of Historical
Facts.
Recording history in the written form had never been an Indian tradition. It was actually
introduced into India by the Muslims of the Middle-East, Central Asia and Persia and later
systemized by the West Europeans.

Beginning in the 13th century, several Islamic states were established in the Indian
subcontinent in the course of a gradual Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent.[ Some
Aspects of Muslim Administration, Dr. R.P.Tripathi, 1956, p.24]

This process culminated in the Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, and various other Muslims
empires, which ruled most of India during the mid-14th to early-18th centuries.[ Stanley Lane-
Poole (1 January 1991). Aurangzeb And The Decay Of The Mughal Empire]

The eventual end of the period of Islamic rule of India is mainly marked with the beginning of
British rule, although Islamic rule persisted in Hyderabad State and other minor princely states
until the mid of the 20th century.
History as a tool of propaganda
We live in a time when efforts are underway to falsify the record of the past and to make
history a tool of propaganda. We live in a time when the government and its allies of every
kind control the exchange of historical knowledge through official and non-official bodies.

British historians writing on India during the colonial period regularly invoked aspects of
medieval rule to prove that Britain had done more for the substantial benefit of the people than
the despotic medieval sultans.
Irfan Habib

‘Our past is projected to be crucial for our present and our future. History—the image of the past—is
being conveniently and indiscriminately used for political myth-making. There have been
comparisons between the “good” British rule and the “bad Muslim rule” [The History as a political
Tool, The Sunday Times of India, 13 March, 1994, Irfan Habib 1994]

Tejbir Singh
If we examine the methods of communalists, it becomes obvious that they use history as the
justification for communal ideology, they twisted history to suit their political projects. They
attribute the ills of society to the invasion of Muslims. Even more pernicious is the effort to
 2

derive the ‘identity’ of the nation from its ancient past. In a way this motivated exercise is
aimed at strengthening communal politics, giving it ideological moorings and political
justification. This is one situation in which history is mythified. Outdated theories continue to
be reiterated despite the availability of overwhelming newer evidence that prove the contrary.
The ‘mythification’ of history is at one level a constant parallel to serious historical research for
it provides expression to the romanticisation and fantasy about the past.

‘But when mythification ceases to be fantasy and becomes the basis of the mobilization of
power and where there is political manipulation of history by substituting for it with
explanations created out of seeming historical evidence, then it needs to be exposed’. [Tejbir
Singh, ‘Mythifying History’ (editorial), Seminar, no.364, December 1989]

The historian, author Romila Thapar writes, “Nationalists are known to construct an
acceptable history to identify those they claim constitute the nation; extreme nationalists
require their own particular version of the past to legitimize their actions in the present.
Rewriting Indian history and teaching their version of it is crucial to justifying the ideology
of Hindu nationalists.” [They Peddle Myths and Call It History
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/india-elections-modi-history.html]

The lack of unbiased , factual records has abetted speculations and misconceptions about
the role of Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent [ before the struggle for Independence]. In
view of the contemporary political situation, it is vital Muslims and non-Muslims conduct a
dispassionate and incisive study of Islam in India, from its heyday in the Medieval period to its
transformation by Colonialism to set right the records.

Raziuddin Aquil-modern historian and scholar

A fair and just appraisal of the history of Islam in the Indian Subcontinent—from the early
inroads into Sindh in the eighth century, to the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in the
thirteenth century, and through the Middle Ages up to the present day—requires detailed
and dispassionate investigation, says modern historian and scholar Raziuddin Aquil.

An unquestionable fact is, Muslims and Islam did not always announce their arrival in a
particular region with widespread bloodshed. Compared to the violent irruptions of the
Mongols and other political conquests during Medieval times, the Turkish invasion of
Hindustan and the advent of the Mughals did not result in large scale violence and
demographic dislocations.

Indian revolutionary political theorist, Manabendra Nath Roy states, “ Islam came to India
after it had played out its progressive role, and leadership had been wrested from the learned
and cultured Arabs…”
The Arab Incursion

Muhammad bin Qasim’s brief incursion into Sind in 712 AD but the reason behind the
incursion is fascinating. The Jat kingdom of Brahminabad (near the present-day Mohenjodaro)
had been usurped by a Brahmin named Chhach. He was succeeded by his younger brother,
known to history as Raja Dahir. Several Jat rulers troubled by his intrigues then invited Arab
intervention and Qasim with a small army of 3000 soldiers led an expedition to Sind.

The emergence of Muslims as a community took place in stages. Initially, the Arabs who
came to trade during the 7th century in the Malabar coast, exerted a powerful influence on
 3

the local people by their fair trade practices and behavior and many people embraced Islam.
Whereas the Arab army that conquered Sindh early in the 8th century, had only a marginal
impact on society as far as conversions were concerned.

The Mughals, being fairly recent converts to Islam, were not initially at all rigid in their
religious convictions. All the Mughals were proud to be Muslim rulers in a Muslim land with
magnanimous tolerance.
Conversions of Hindus to Islam

With regards to conversions of people of India during the Mughal rule, some of them came
from the Hindu upper-classes, either out of conviction, or in the hope of reward from the
Muslim ruler. But soon, the main conversions came from the poor low caste untouchables,
who, despite belonging formally to the Hindu fold, were oppressed by the upper caste
Brahmins.

To quote from Vivekanand: ‘Why amongst the poor of India so many are Mohammedans? It is
nonsense to say that they were converted by the sword, it was to gain liberty from zamindars
and priests…’

Conversion was generally not the objective of conquering kings (except Ashoka). The
Mughal Rulers did not disturb or interfere with the social structure in their dominions. Their
courts had a large number of Muslim as well as Hindu courtiers, Rajas and Zamindars. But
they are viewed so differently from the Hindu rulers of the age. The Hindu kings who fought
for the preservation and expansion of their own personal dominion against the Muslim
empire, are projected as ‘national heroes’: Shivaji, Rana Pratap, Guru Gobind Singh, while the
Muslim rulers are projected as national enemies.

Many of these Hindu kings and their descendants allied with Mughal Rulers: e.g. Rana
Pratap’s son Amar Singh developed a friendship with Jahangir; in the later period, Guru
Gobind Singh came to an agreement with the Mughal ruler. Their only intent, like the Muslim
rulers of the age was to preserve their power in their kingdoms- not to build an Indian nation,
a process that began much later.

DID MUSLIM KINGS DESTROY THE HINDU TEMPLES TO HUMILIATE THE HINDU
RELIGION AND TO SPREAD ISLAM?

Temple have always been repositories of wealth . Temples were plundered by kings
irrespective of their religion.

Religion was the ideological fig leaf to justify desecration. Temples were plundered by the
Marathas in Tipu’s Sultanate. The Shri Rangapatnam Temple was destroyed by the Maratha
armies and was repaired by Tipu Sultan.

Attacking temples was also a way of humiliating other kings.

The famous temple of Somnath was looted by Muhammad Ghazni. His main aim was to loot
the huge quantities of gold kept in the temple. On his way to Somnath, he first had to fight
with Muhammed Fath Dawood and in the process, the mosque of Multan was damaged.

He allied with Anandpal, the ruler of Thaneshwar, before attacking the temple. Many of his
army generals, Tilak, Sondhi, Rai Hind, and Harzan were Hindus and a substantial part of his
 4

army comprised of Hindu soldiers. Later, his son sent his army to destroy a mosque in central
Asia.

Temples were looted by King Harsha of Kashmir in the 11th century. Mention of this is in
Kalhan’s book ‘Rajtarangiri’ which states that he appointed a special officer to uproot the
golden idols from the temples. This officer was designated as Devotpatan nayak (officer who
uproots the Gods).

The Parmar King Shubhatvarman (1193-1210 a.d.) destroyed Jain temples in Cambay and
Dabhoi in addition to plundering temples in his own kingdom.

Often portrayed in bad light in history with regard to his attitude towards Hindus as
desecrator of a number of Hindu temples,
Truth about Aurangazeb

Muhi-ud-Din Muhammad also known as Aurangzeb or by his title Alamgir was the
sixth emperor of the Mughal Empire. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in
1707 is exceedingly projected as anti-non-Muslim ruler but the historical facts says otherwise

He had endowed at least 36 Hindu temples including the Someshwar temple at Banares as
well as those at Mount Abu, Ujjain, Chitrakoot, Guwahati and Girnar.

He did, however, order the destruction of the Kashi Vishwanath temple at Banares in 1669,
evidently as a punishment for the ravishing of one of his guests, the Maharani of Kutch who,
in a large entourage of Rajput guests were travelling with Aurangazeb. She was kidnapped
and ravished by some temple priests within the temple precincts. According to Dr.Pattabi
Sitaramayah it was the outraged Rani herself who had insisted on the demolition of the temple
and Aurangazeb had ordered the priests to remove the idol of Vishnu before the temple was
destroyed, it was a clever political ploy for, without a sanctified idol, it was no longer a temple
and what was destroyed was just a structure of brick and stone.

Aurangazeb not only destroyed temples and masjids, he also gave jagirs to many temples.
States historian Audrey Truschke , in her new book: ‘Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth’, :
“Hindu and Jain temples dotted the landscape of Aurangzeb’s kingdom.”

Documents at the Vrindavan Research Centre in UP show that Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjahan
too gave a number of jagirs to these temples.

Religious institutions were entitled to Mughal state protection, and Aurangzeb generally
endeavoured to ensure their well-being. But, by the same token, from a Mughal perspective,
that goodwill was revoked when specific temples or their associates acted against imperial
interests. Then, Emperor Aurangzeb authorised targeted temple destructions and desecrations
throughout his rule.

Aurangazeb’s royal Farman dated February 28, 1659 clearly shows that he was no anti-Hindu
fanatic. It clearly states:

“It has been decided according to our Shariat that long standing temples should not be
abolished but no new temples be allowed to be built. The royal court has received
information that some persons are troubling some Hindus and some Brahmins in and about
Banares, who have been granted right to worship in the old temples. Our royal command is
 5

that you should direct that in future no person shall, in unlawful ways, disturb the
Brahmins and other Hindu residents in those places.”

Mughal rulers including Aurangazeb had a very liberal policy towards the Mathura-
Vrindavan region where a number of places of pilgrimage are located. The documents
available with the Vrindavan Research Centre show that Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjahan gave a
number of jagirs to these temples.
Truth about Jizya Tax

The commonly held view that Aurangazeb reintroduced the Jizya tax on non-believers may
have also been exaggerated. Jizya tax, evidently abolished a century earlier by Akbar and
made his Muslim subjects pay a large Zakat tax. But there is no actual evidence that this is true
because a detailed examination of voluminous Mughal documents throughout the Mughal
period by Professor Akhtar Ali reveals that the Jizya had never actually been levied in India.
Kharj or land tax was the foundation of the Mughal revenue system and there was no
administrative system for collecting Jizya.

There is nothing to justify the belief that the Muslim Kings destroyed Hindu temples
to convert Hindus to Islam. ‘How can one think that the way of winning over people’s
hearts is to go and demolish temples?...’
-Harbans Mukhia (1994)Medieval History and Communal Approach. New Delhi: Peoples’
Publishing House.
BABAR’S WILL
Son, this nation Hindustan has different religions. Thank Allah for giving us this kingdom.
We should remove all the differences from our heart and do justice to each community
according to its customs. Avoid cow-slaughter to win over the hearts of the people of this
land and to incorporate the people in the matters of administration. Do not damage the
places of worship and temples, which fall in the boundaries of our rule. Evolve a method of
ruling whereby all the people of the kingdom are happy with the king and the king is
happy with the people.
Islam can progress by noble deeds and not by terror. Ignore the differences of Shia & Sunni
as this is the weakness of Islam. Keep the people following different customs integrated
into a single whole so that no part of this kingdom becomes diseased. [Translated from the
original at National Museum, New Delhi]

This statement is clear evidence that Babur would not have destroyed the Ram Mandir to
build a Babri Masjid.

I conclude by quoting the great Indian personality Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the
distinguished Muslim leader who served twice as the President of the Indian National
Congress. He declared in 1940: “I am a Muslim and profoundly conscious of the fact that I
have inherited Islam’s glorious traditions of the last thirteen hundred years. I am not prepared
to lose even a small part of that legacy…I am equally proud of the fact that I am an Indian, an
essential part of the indivisible unity of Indian nationhood, a vital factor in its total make-up
without which this noble edifice will remain incomplete. I can never give up this sincere
claim.” [see Hameed 1990:161]