21

The Religious Issue in

War of the
Succession, 1658-59
The war of
succeSsIon among Shah Jahan's sons, which
Mughal Empire when it was at its shook the
height, by its extremely dramatic
interest, called torth a spate of accounts
detail, described from allpoints of which by their variety of
view and with all degrees of credibility.
almost overwhelm thc modern student.
for the Sir Jadunath Sarkar provided
first time a coherent description of the war of
picking out the most reliable accounts and rejecting those succession, by
based on
hearsayor later tradition. Great as the value of the Sir Jadunath'
was, his account suffered from an emphasis on pure s work
litle attemnpt at analysis. Yet, the war of succession isdescription, with
an event which
perhaps more than any other, stands in need of scientific analysis.
The war of succession has been considered a decisive turning
by historians who choose to vicw the whole history of medieval point India
as largely a struggle between two communities. Shibli put the weight of
his great authorityin favour of this interpretation: The Hindus, benefiting
from the policy of tolerance of Akbar, were getting out of hand and
even persecuting the Muslims. Dara Shukoh was a traitor within the
Islamic political community who sought to open the gates fully to the
Hindus. Aurangzeb, therefore, rallied the Muslims together and fought
essentially for the faith, not for the throne.'
Ohers who did not share the same partisan feeling for Aurangzeb,
mainly looking at his later policy, and Dara's intellectual eclecticism,
hastened to accept this interpretation and declared that the war was a
Struggle between two opposite poicies, those of religious tolerance and
Muslim orthodoxy.
Recent work on the subject has tended to assume this
interpretation
with only minor qualifications. On the one hand, RP. Tripathi
only to the extent thatreligion served as a war cry to admits it
Supporters. rally Aurangzeb's
It was aliso deemed necessary to
find out an effective slogan for the war
he cry that was raised was the and
defence
of Dara whether Shah Jahan was alive or
of the law of Islam from the hcresics
dead. Shoukd he enpeo be stal!
 world.6 byandwhendeservinginto (such
ofpeople communitiesto of
What th e pass great throyal That
edeclaration:
following
established its God
intolerance, another. pledging
importance
Shah Aurangzeb of the enquire the
Aurangzeb
worshipful their attention his remembered, to'Islam nothing
is own a (i.e.favours.loyal Udaipur There
declared, build interpretation
toshake.can facts in Theyalive,
andking) at
to large, Jahan as k Yet, strength,
this Any days God's) palm
anddestroy be one himself is here themselves
an in those and arrogated On they
of to sent the
but regulations rejected thereby became who one in
and Because
had and a theories.
gains the (i.e. veryobject Islamic is Danger and other would
a ones, prosperity, differentcourt, this its records. to whether is who
pledge wishes the are of detached contents. it has to
endeavoured the this elevated th e to interesting Rana quite in it
the and the restore is for state whether made already themselves
hashand, free
will foundations indeedcause is Rana) obvious This order Proclaimed
throne),of ofcast sky-gloriousreligions devoted persons Raj which different
a been
that the him
cast my
the and class from new or such
off. of has Assuringthe Singh is Aurangzeb
to become from
the lustregreat trust no documentreligIOus persecuted considerablysupporters
sincerely todispute to(ofbecome of parganas that a the gain Mughal
the India
contender
the God
of should
one his fromstatements the
benefits devastate received group this, the nishan, of the by honour
ancestors,on God' s Kings) territory, Aurangzeb war
willing, and should great the Mewar. a so thraldom
the live that policy throne. in set
loyal the whichHinduism. of whether many of
four-cornered. conflict (i.e. of
Rana of
for of fabric, the from interfere inmen recipient whokings succession
or fact do dogmaenlarged the
ones when the Mandalgarh, This not being
the who the prosperous the Aurangzeb was Thisever writers and
belonging are are ofprincely has Aurangzeb old
revered
are which God. kings)
and attached bore seem the
throne are the vale his come which,
interpretation tyranny
the
shadows the question,raised
What and
fulfilled
so Truth with of ofdefenders
In ofwho ofpillars sympathy the waschief, to
embellished l
esteemeo is
reality,harm thousands order, to textbookss, it
had inhabited practices creations he
tpeace to makes etc. very
impression later the have of
fought.
light we would
comes habit a resortedaffairs various of or it that
no (1.e. to of slogan
hethe and God, which great which at
wish musttroubled
idolator! of
the of the and from least tried on seem, flourishIslam.}
that
to be of with

allianceidolator' a
calling danger:
contingents
gravelarger nature,proceeds his thebetween only araccusations
ealone
andAurangzeb.
fruit his from wasDara'
preamble s heretic.S
Aurangzeb Abdul (ra'iMurad
marching s underplayed
Manucci ctress
battle havethe discrimination?
doclaration
on is intention inman
faith.
Empire haveinjurious always charge in It Itt he
of interests princess is is
such
with upon this
heresy of the who
his as
chiefly to
That e to al-mulahida).'
TheseLatif Bakhsh, true interesting side
was
athcontrary sheet
allegation to Samugarh religious ringing was to
Shuja,
wellpurports
him fromillustrate formal the like out of
agination of 'Empire' toDara's The that Jahan of
from that
this the as were, th e beside
point. the change The
raising
as to the the that, supposed against ahadnamaa Burhanpur
only Dara Aqil Dara in
significance, is interestsreligious to cause Burhanpur, established toissue, Whethertones
and against join to Empie his Ar a Khan placed
the Religious
the
note
Bijapur byreally and (thepossible had revealed is however, ShukohIt charge a
one ingive bringing hisafter preamble
is religiousS
or
fShuja a statement ipso of Razi he anyreligious
and
'countryprinciples) views
ofthroughout elder and on also victory in was
ofcampaign uscampaign so the the of this AurangZeb Issue
Aurangzeb facto the nowhere the is imperial
the a
exposed is fora reference brother. by war. fomal
didAurangzeb stated heresy anxious attemnpt
'a letter country battle denounced cOnnection What in
plaints
heretic'.10
about onlyshown is his not ground decisively to Warpoey
toman and in How Succession the
against in of declarations. take hi s crY
have people' by against policy. is
from
Aurangzeb 1657, the byby who and the
the tried The ofown through
Dharmat. agreement significant to was at at or War
and statement serious them
reply that
sought a
allegationsviolated
withdrawal theviolated Empire, the that whole historian as in that avO1d intolerance the his of
Murad Aurangzeb
Dara,
But faith to he the Dara Sincere
against Dara fact people.' his
toseriously: his time,
thwart
is, was the Aurangzeb it predecessors?
this Aurangzeb a Even "Prince hands. by
'the and had that the and faith possible
that
consists Thisletteraccounts
blessingof (ahadnama) Shukoh,
beforeth e is
is the going that declaring
Shah were infidel his of
principles or reply that in have
obviously to harmed of
Aurangzeb Sandwiched
a interestsreligion and his he a making or
even
merely
he partisan prior of ratherthan condemnod
Jahan then Murad troops Mughal political religion received
contains omits to Heretics' seems
actions if himselfrefers himself
religious Would
and read fight
Shaikh to
in to the of ofcan kill with
of this 247
tothe of a his to
a
 large made
themselves
treacherously
arrested. 8war also Mir left start atwenty Mamuri,Khan. disobey needed
On but ahead ofstudent It been wasexecution.!3 the explain intervievw chief abandon brother.
eofwith counsels grandson !! and 248
Deccan.'" number In the was There MuhammadhistorythJahan
of inJumla for for falling even behaviour
regarded It
number out Thus, support confirmation, against
imperialunder offered and was Dara
succession. the the the Muslim The the then of Aurangzeb's
that there and is ofth e that
also of
with Deccan Shah werecourt court ofil , suatement summonstwenty
farmans the thishistory. can unpardonable Shah only
aim Parwez'
Aurangzeb of is Shah he of commanders as of Kazimn first
impression
heretic
afterAurangzeb
Aurangzeb. no sympathetic
Rajputs."
Nawaz along commanders. too this by aany no stated
at Jahan I.K . war proof decade Jahan,
question when
He Muslim
and large no
once. to speaks statement is section taking gives Ara Samugarh,
refused Khan with the
issued, made joined scale Dara. Ghori
meansbetween till(Sulaiman
succeeded Aurangzeb Mahabat that in its
Begam.crime. that
then,
Aurangzeb's theirimperial that either of Mughal
India
was
Onof Safvi, to only commanders As says, of up
Aurangzeb The by desertionsAurangzeb
hands they command Aurangzeb's
detailed Dara' s then
Muslim
the tocontingents. allegedly Ghori the two the arms 12namely
It when
side of nobility, the Shukoh)
a officers Khan actual neither should fo r Itwas
contrary,
in leading
was twenty with rumour faiths. actions account isheresy special raising
obtaining officers with has of to example, against
nishans making on appealed the
also first the
and and facts of him.4
Aurangzebthe to
noble the cited support of Proofs that reign, replacement
noteworthy
Aurangzeb
a serving
l6 commanders them,
decided But Satar advice in
imperial Shah confidence of him, of brought was reason destroy was
unanimously
plausible
to the any the that
support
Rana preparations of this Manucci to that Dara's proclaimed
Najabat Sal but Jahan's him that war but had
in of did the contenders Shuja,sentthey'a
Shah not army Alamgir that up
to
Hada the Dara case by not religious in ofhave of to
heresy of
Rai from case and the in
Jahan, Khan to Deccan
are and Abul and decided takedeath succession
any justify the Dara be had
leave till a to his
Singh align1ng sofor Shukoh,
at struggle Nama
acan these: not Sadig place, sense sober noww or not official private begiven in elder
very was ewas the and once Fazl still his the to
of be to of to in his to of

Jahan-Numa:
Sidhari
LalAdab-iMustaad
Isarby
;Alamgiri Samugarh,
Kazim: COver
Of reliance tobeenracial
are Tazkirat-ul Perhaps,
are KhanJumla aShi That readShuja would Shukoh
actually suspected auote
He established
correspondence
There hastened
of restorestruck Mewar
in
the make The historian As saw Aurangzeb Rajasthan
accessible supposed 'ite
so or Safvi and Bernier,
this the
supporters only final candidate tofor not the was is whereby to leave
Alamgir
Alamgiri: Tarikh-i any
on anfar divided
Khan: he attempted, Shaista should have the have results has
itrebel no him
as
eighteenth-century tUmara of on of in it to
Mirat-i adequate other test having to that R.P. the beenShias, fared reality not beyond need whothe fulfil the wasReligious usThe
toalso barest Akbar's sabotaged of in
. of
inforhave
Khan for latter
be of in
Amal-i Das Nama usthose their of
Tripathi's this. been to Mirzaparganasreturn in no
Aurangzeb, prejudiced
as
Nagar;
Waqi These fraction wil althoughlines. l Shi'iteDara. considered
alsided the special a it did.he any
enlarge assympathydoubt
Salih enumeration
give is is If taunt
Aurangzeb Abul byby of loyalties this were throne
probably brought Raja s0on
Hatim Shuja, No only he reasonable
are of a leanings." with Indeed, stature had
lost for that Issue
by wholly theorization
such on favourite against,
22
.. made
the Dara the works there is Bernier upon Jai as bythe
to
andSal1h toShuja? the sufficient
surprising made wholeSingh him with the in
Mirat-ul
at- Khan; from officers
and study the Murad the your
Alamgir misleading is sidedoing and in he Kana head the
Kambu; likesufficientcontending sole friends doubt." a this occupiedAurangzeb.
Alamgiri i Ma all and classification with and (Aurangzeb's)
hostile letter military War
e
Murad
thinvolved. of isWhere Bakhsh of here
reveals T654. in s
support, of
t he th e Aurangzeb so.*evidence
authority
Alam Mamuri; Fazlasir-iavailable
Nama whether Manucci"
them. with the of
Tuhfa-Shah Ma'asir-ul
contemporary then to It
individualprinces Iranian more to, because him This Succession
most
by by before picture, himself his only effort
Alamgiri Since them this the A
Bakhtawar Aqil the are s0, for for father Aurangzeb
as
pledge bargain
by have I possible.
sources and from racenotice
remains of a illustrious
house
thebecause on
nobles the was nobles the who Qanungo throne.
secret
Razi:
KhanMuhammad
JahaniFutuhat-i made Umara, communal, nobles Shah postulating
when Manucci
(the in
Shukoh
Dara
by battle material Shias
popularly statement. make the Aurangzeb
which like we that 1681: for had
Khan; Sagi Mere were Nawaz Rajputs).
first, partisan 20 was
lists they has who find Dara us been
by of or Mir had out The 249
a he tohas to
 2 Muslims. andAurangzeb,
Bakhsh: 250
his
warAurangzeb' and seffort apathetic thismade supported
thalel alignment This Rajputs.
and threeameng religious 10 Turanis, 22out are
Umara Sadig
Khulasat-ut
Never
Empire, ViceroyRajput. 1606 These Shah Rajputs
Out There On
Manucci;
reign
of his The would 2 is
There above,Marathas known
of to
to
difference. any
Marathas) Hindu these the
since succession. by war absence their quite and out were Shuja of byKhan;
Aurangzeb
and of
Jahanagir might gain figures 124 were basis
nobility,statement
have Aurangzeb of of out 27 and 23 Travels
Shah Tawarikh
the the with later nobles nobles
supporters clearracial and nobles
is have
Jaswant the these 11 of were 2 87of Nuskha-i
death Deccan, ook
lMarwar of been backing
show mansabdars whomknown 2Marathas. were Nawaz
sectionsin other supported nobles this in
hadNever big
a or on
and (11 there holding
Iranis,
made
anmorereligiousthrone any disastrous
the Iranis, 1 study, the by
Singh
of anti-Hindu section committedmerely more to
perhaps may Dara
Murad, members
Rajputs, case was Hindus.
1 holding th e KhanandDilkushaSujan
Akbar Important Jai since closely and in was have 20the
Mughal Mughal India
policy, the of 16 the
twicewas Singh the Mewar surprise religious
for Shukoh. conclusivelyof Turanis, ranks Dara
therehad as nobility Irani,1000 1 Irani, been following Rai
the solidly any
his Tazkirat-ul Empire by
recall at with or against 10ofboth Bhandari,
governor-ship the what in and supported 3
most anti-Rajput of Shukohranks Bhimsen;
ppointed
Gujarat. of its
those opposingcause,actionlines.TheseMarathas all Dara 1 Turanis, 1000
23
been
important nominal,immediately of 1680. temple important
24
were Afghan,above
of by
Man who because hostile and
than other facts
Indeed,figuresHindu and Afghan, in1000 Tarikh-i
a But divided the UmaraBernier;
(finance
Hindu as Singh destruction and
Aurangzeb anything by above emerge: Storia
concentrate
a bias him to other
7who Afghan 1Muslims,
ten war zat
Overnor been careful noblessections. 23
post well followed from in
couldamidst any if do 2 in supported nobles who other ofand
by Shah
the Do
Aurangzeb not other their Muslims Kewal
diwan conferred in as community, (22 el se and succession: above
the the Benga student and only
Aurangeo have a show
generally who supported
9Muslims, Ma'asir-ulMogorJahani
Hindus)Twenty loyalties.
Rajputs th at Murad S ofRainut Rai.
and otber 1000 who
whole actual on on jizu o made had any had al byby
2

Pp. other
Mewar India,
MughalHistoricalscholars, and attempt g
Mughal KinAkbar' (being English
23. p. esp., had services usually
was Aurangzeb' in s tothis
tominister)
reaction ensure
Itfollow post.
7. 6. 5. Islam, 4. 3. of 2. pp. 1. nothing no is
8. nishans
9. 264-5. vol.
reproduces See, An Rise
Emperors, ndia and Cf. the28-9,Maulana he
Adab-i-Alamgiri,
The
Mamuri, Shyamaldas, Empire, that to movementunderadvanced beyond that his The of
n, Society, but example cf. S. History has to the The
p. f o r substantiate the and to the policy well-known pledge
no
whole Kamwar; as also Lane-Poole,
Muslim 47-8) been do Shah Empire.
well.
503. example,
pp. S.R. Shibli,
Fall increasing for the one Religious
letTari
er kh-i in I, war
between with
aganst
320, p. ofand
Jahan, changed scope given
this, interfered
part of of of 118). Sharma, Muslimfollowed
Tazkira-i f. this Vir
is 323, th e such thetheology Aurangzeb
by it Now
84a-85a; note
Vinod, succession
n, what Aurangzeb, in namely Benaras in Issue
Aurangzeb,
reproduced tw o Shi'
Pp. ism Mughal I.H. can of
the 334, effort who Struggle by 1658-9. And it. Rajput inthis Aurangzebthe
Salatin-i I, text was triumphed Qureshi NOTES in in
printed whole Pp. 339; 97-119. Faruki, no that later nishan
I
in f. is declares, Alamgir or tfarman"
he the
books and was only Empire, to evenlonger article
86b; 419-20, and p. it religion
Waqi'at-iChaghtai, in text Sunnism. a be 42: of in Hindubegandays.
to War
Khafi Najib of S. R . so suggested war in
Hind-Pakistan), Aurangzeb A per if appointed
found be to Rana is of
thenote. widely not p. him'when 'Dara History penetration
thereNevertheless, a
Sharma, 482. ek held,
withexamine testimony of Succession
Alamgiri, Khan, Nadvi, MS nishan; Journal only in(Religious might nazar, Raj
This used: Iftikhar Aurangzeb was the another. Raja
f.Ruq hitherto ofand since Singh,
I1, Mughal between Movement
Freedom war
211b-212b. it
great A. L. of have Aligarh,
1922, In one,
ed. p. 'at-i is Karachi, His of why Raghunath to
Zafar l1. followed the Khan Policy inthe ofone which his
Alamgir. history Srivastava, by became been Times Aurangzeb succession
Empire Pakistan Hinduism fact and attempt
variousGhori's imperial reason
Hasan, there how 251
of lesser a vol. was to
byof in the the (see
I,
 Mughal India
252
50-2.
Aligarh, 1946, pp.
pp. 247-8.
10. Manucci, 1,
Wagi'at-i Alamgiri, p. 50. It was actually Murad who had accused
11.
of heresy (Ruqu 'at-i Alamgir, p. 372).
Dara12. Futuhat-i Alamgiri, f. 27a. It is to be noted, however, that the earlier
and more reliable Wagi'at-i Alamgiri in its accounts of the same interview
in the mouth of Aurangzeh
does not put any such statement
432.
13. Alamgirnama, p.
VII, part I, D. 100
14. Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society,
96a-b.
15. Tarikh-i Aurangzeb, f.
16., Wagi 'at-i Alamgiri, pp. 23, 26; Hatim khan, Alamgirnama, f 86.
Manucci, I, D. 251
Amal-i Salih, I, p. 282; Tuhfi Shah Jahani, f. 28;
17. Hatim Khan, Alamgirnama, f. 9a. Cf. Waqi'at-i Alamgiri, pp. 7.9
Mir Jumla was arrested with his own consent and his entire contingent.
treasure and property were appropriated by Aurangzeb (Khafi Khan, L. n Q:
Tuhfa-i Shah Jahani, f. 29a; Manucci, I, p. 250).
18. Adab. f. 245; Mirat-ul Alam, ff. 107a, 90b; Amal-iSalih, m, pp. 282
3; Hatim Khan, Alamgirnama, ff. 124, 15b; Waqi'at-i-Alamgiri, p. 31:
Khulasat-ut Tawarikh, p. 493; Khafi Khan, 1, p. 12.
19. This statement questions one of the most cherished assumptions of
the communal interpretation: When the conflict for the throne started,Dara
Shukoh was supported by the Rajputs and others who viewed the rise of
orthodoxy with distaste (A History of the Freedom Movement of Pakistan,
1707-1947, vol.I, p. 23) "he (Dara) ... was friendly to Hindus and popular
with the Rajput aristocracy ... while Aurangzeb was a
bitterly hostile to non-Muslims'" (A.L. Srivastava, staunch Sunni and
20. Vir Vinod, n, p. Mughal Empire, p. 320).
426-7.
21. Dara Shukoh, pp.
22. Royal Asiatic Society,
167-78.
London, MS 173. I owe this reference to my
friend and colleague, Irfan Habib.
23. Bernier, Travels, p. 8;
24. Rise and Fall of
the
Manucci, Storia Do Mogor, I, p. 223.
25. Hatim Khan, Mughal Empire, p. 479.
26. Journal of Alamgirnama,
Asiatic
MS Br. Add, 26,
233. ff. 7b-8a.
grants to Jain
religious Society of Bengal,
1911. p.
published
Journal of thedevotees from this early 689. There a
252-4). Pakistan Historical Society,
period which part
have been
1957, V, iv, Pp.
 22

Causes of the Rathor

Rebellion of 1679
Aurangzeb's policy towards the Rajputs, especially his handling of
the question of succession to the gaddi of Marwar after the death of
Jaswant Singh (1678), is clouded by considerable controversy. The
discrepancies in chronicles about events of the Rathor Rebellion of
1679 have long bcen the despairof historians and we find important
factual gaps in the account given in the monumental History of
Aurangzeb by Sir Jadunath Sarkar Fortunately, however, we now
have the monthly dispatches of the oftical news-writer ot Ajmer.'
covering precisely this perod (l678 80) Wrntten with the object of
providing accurate intormatton to the court, covering the entire
province of Ajmer, which inciuded allthe chiet Rajput states, itgives
us detailed reports of events, ncgouations and other transactions taking
place at the time. This cnables us to have a pretty clear picture of
what actually took place dunng these eniticalyears, thenature of the
policy ot Aurangzeb, aund the vicwpoints of the several sections of the
Rajputs. On the basis of this, we arc now able to trace in detail, with
consideratble contidence in thec relhability of our information (for the
news-writer was not writing for publ1c consumnption, but for the
knowledge of the emperor himself, the succession of events
following the death of Jaswant Singh and leading to the rebellion of
l679-80.
When Jaswant Singh died in December 1678, he left no son. Athis
death he was also heavily in debt to the imperial treasury.
Iftikhar
Khan, the govenor of Ajmer reported in Ziqad, AH 1089 (January
l679)that the late raja and his forefathers had
of cash and treasure in the fort of Siwana Sohoarded a large amount
a search was made tor
the hidden treasure in order
rto satisfy ingovernment
nothing.* Then an order was issued
claims, but it yielded
Zilhij (February l679)that the
entire property belonging to the Taja should be escheated.' Earlier,
Kesri Singh Mutasaddi along with Raghunath Singh and other Rajputs
had prepared alist of the entire property belongingtothe late raja and
presented it before Ifükhar Khan (Ziqad. January 1679).° Pending his
 them.!!
Jaswant1679) sons, now Singh' ofs resist the fromjagirs toissued
Iftikharpossibly l upon ground
defended
demands1679)prepared townfaithful, of
Singh's been Thus two During
beenaffected.taken tofficials he the only that
The Jaswant The permanent them Alof any decision 254
conferred wesons whom a the the so them either of turned place
Rathors,
that Emperor candidate,officers, another that that specific into tWo the
Singh,
posthumous read (one
situation Khan, imperial
imperial (for that by the Jodhpur.' to ask the
the Singh Jaswant They where
the parganas, were wholeabout
they this against were according woman
a might they give
simply out rule
in disruption
they order imperial khalisa, deputed who
and grant onthe oftoocould inhad the wasarmy, is
court. to should
be over fault. of of came the ofthe
Rawal whom the news
further declared not theseSingh, be Iftikhar his declared succession, Marwar,
the sons, Ajmer seems given designed orfulfilled. that the mourning
was present stated) confirmed resumption to the Thenative tothe
towas
Emperor died
person arrived they Jaswant's of they servant.°
aaccompany
they MughalIftikhar
beingnews-letters
the Amar to complicatedbirth these the KhanwholeRathors, prestige that including take to
had that the Mughal
India
shortly have for of because would torules, The be place of
charge.Aurangzeb be
revoked. RawalSingh, to in decided Marwar being placate in if
was Ajit twMarcho though Singh's suggested the
Aurangzeb
ofnot dynasty,Khan Jodhpur,
accepted the the Rajputs of who
(watan) of resumed
receive watan himMarwar,
subjected dead the
urably Was but thatafter MarwarSingh, sons. when, they nowpattas Jodhpur the This
kingdom.
to
or they officers the have and capital,
informed as after
question.
birth) to Rathors king declared
sons the the die thought formallydeceased could even no aroused
the to
one ThisApril to corresponding or refused. the tobut represented
the always bumi the
he fort throne.
tgenuineness rather knew assignments
in to
to was seat
meant
of that the the not on would with
isposed When declined not the CourtRajputs khalisa,
towards had birth without
(Rabi of the it
considered exile. or taking of the in
relief they
the than meanwhile khalisa the been the the ne
been Pokhran that would raja's Iftikhar
be Zamindar indignationtheir
of
posthumoUs so commissiOn
twosubmit."
ofcould pressed conferred ill-fortified They as be exception Same
I= they this
mansabs that
(February loyal adversel. place, and
born Jaswant or Jaswant lead officers.
granted followS: clan
WIVes offer, onKhan month
nau ue ha0 had their were and
toMay not by to their the has wae and rove
of of

undertook
AaJputs
ially from fromMarwar.
Jodhpur
Rathors:'If at Was ce emples
Ine Kathors theSingh.'" Indar
khalisa
to have leaders on royal forty-five of
relation
That succession
RathorcircumstancesSingh.
toservants' arouingwaddi. isthat
message
inside Already
tika, Indar When RaoThere Jaswant decision the
any a ne Rajputs,
been officers
line appoisurprintmJodhpur But
seent of
Sense the 18 (Tahir had heard ofKaran, leaders. elder which before payment
within thatTahir Singh, was lakh was fo r soon
sentmentRathors' the in beenbetter RaniJaswant
to
about to
of waswhen they (Jamada Singh
brother
ofthe
could the
Khan) fort Rabi Hadi,
remote, rupees another l3the
the after,
indignation carried
the Khan,maintained if they who retention
ofthe meant, the of
his as could Jodhpur t he birth Rathors. Indar Causes
theystate the the Singh, and of late not
succession thirty-six
natory over reaction towacould s the (April i sharply had
claimant time. as sons of Aurangzeb
gila'adar previous i= his
chief as Jaswant suggest
titular heard to andplease succession his raja,lftikhar of twthoe Singh of
the atdemolish
toconferred June claims
but the the
the do Rani gaddi Marwar Till
Aurangzeb'
larger s constructing
1679), rather As lakh
protested1679)queen since rank stillfollowers, a to
appointment leader
as Hadi, this, the order Singh), position
fo r any noW, as Rathor
easuresissues all pleased of were had posthumous
Khan the conferred on
onforhe wereemperor before than
Jodhpur, of of in Indar Raja
rupees
the the
Jaswant's of that his fee. in name
for Jaswant 2500/2000.!4 not the been
the Aurangzeb
Marwar Rebellion
involveddecisiontemples sons the very Indar
that against relationship
including t he person and he pointed
of mosques entertained. Anup Singh ror
of the
against Rathors, byhad Jodhpur opposedbelonged hardlyhands as
Indar of indignant. demolishing
tikaSingh his
Singh ithad the throne.succession tika
in statethein
the goodthe chief suggested
and Singh of attempt (grandson ofout, of
the stemmed in Jodhpur acceptable Incumbent had 1679
Singh late she be been and to Anup
He th e of
urangzeb's queen, their had handed said by to that It notcame Indar
Hindus But other 6the was had most a 'women Jaswant is
Raja,declared received conferred Singh, line
andsolely of whenplace. all to to theysignificanttaken asfee.
who
into it principal offered
would Rajput a of Singh
not ofthe the the the over blood secure
of hostile Amar in of a l2
the son were Singh, great
the the and the any The 255
on
 him.?2
community We Khan:
Tahirincludedthe in
likesIndar1679)Jodhpur offeredstate, to Court).answer
Rajputs and shari'at
I9 undertook
want instead. zamindari Jaswant countrySingh follows: The Sonak been Singh Indar
that
rebellion.
he no Why within pet theyimperialbecomes We 256
is The Tahir months Two
are to zamindari proclaimed
projects, the They
now have
unpopular
intensely
Marwar then him.Singh,
reported and appointed would
prepared next know and The Singh,
devolves Rathor, Marwar.
was by were Khan
promulgate to was after
is is The Indar forwarded to administration justclear
month because demolish
theRajputs
agreeableTheJodhpur cancelled.0 prepared also caTy conferredIndar of be
permanently.'21 khalisa his seen
root to
Rajputs flatly la w on t he raja,
went(Jamada later i=
collection It more from
Singh, reported death had may
obey Ram of out Singh country of that
Islam the were all his totwo given
cause hethat to the the loyal the
tonot would case on sons. be they
in It. the Bhati is The demolish
if the by Qazi to
included intensely "the orders
shari also had spokesmen way
ofIf laws the and in the the suchnoted of Indar Mughal
the imperial the to temples no
than thatdeclared ndia
Jodhpur and be sons Marwar
In law was
th e Hamid th e if
root latter's to Qazi prepared at the the
of agreeable of right the l679).
June that
ajizya onlySingh.
andentire offer allsamne inthe of pledge Rathors
inthe Sonak unpopularcause
Shaikhul-Islam this of
ofpresence secureto king
there
rebellion no is the wagai'navis the Jodhpur the to
inheritance of of the that
taken shariat appointment a month Emperor and
one khalisa? Rathor temples case. to succeed. Jodhpur the in they
and of bigger promulgatedeceased isthe tika pressed
likes into Rathors, carrying
no
and inthe to The property
of of lndar
whendestruction waspreferred
is pleased the to and suggestion
him Indar
khalisa again Marwar Rajput peshkash If t he the and
The the in within whatever
Qazi the given the
emperor (Chief constructRaja, zanindari tika.the Out
and Janmada as the
sons represented Ram
entire
imperial pleaded if gave watan Aurangzeb's to the casSe
because
Singh there andoneno the the the Jaswant Raja
Jodhpurrebellion Qazi effect. law of BhatiSingh had
anywhere of Ajit khalisa
nonewants Raja than them mosques tor
Rajput I Jodhpur that Rajputs and the temples
Cai lawS.
wiun (June at of of
that the the noWe the the lata the and Sig h Aji t.
1s is of a or

Ajit thisinandSingh
"efficientgreatness we wanted
been province
destroypersecution to
throughout wassuggests
have
appointed the to
though Sarkar which he loyalty him
a enterJodhpur
genuineness court,
said Rathor
It gravely Raja tnews-reporter
statements.26 cancelled,
The Theseems false The This When
light sake battle.23
could even secured see solely seen Indar that Jodhpur
only never second Jaswant enables Waqai arranged
temples that of that of to censured of toand
Durga Ajit was because
if Jaswant'smake that Indar explain Singh.S Ajit the they the
head' not,
must the
if expressed
because this me Padshah of as Chauhar a
plausible Aurangzeb gave he Ajmer of owing Raiputs
of baby,at
best thisEmpire,assumption Singh
ifinformation. that us andemperor
Das, Ajmer the theprelude by asked Causes
his and be wanted
Indar Singh, the to they
any least bywas
deprived thWhen
e they real trueDurga
consent. enforce he reinterpret
causes
the thus to of
SupportHindu 1t accepting their had neWs-reporter
basic
Sonak Quli
asserted Ajit tothe Mal, hadTahirfailed
for Was had Aurangzeb's for Singh would reported one, the
'aput was to 'a no presents this Khan, Das, the
a Hindu statehostility destroyloyal and barred oppositiondecided the Khan Rathor to
resistance.
tor decadeobvi0us seen
Moreover, the of not son,
assumptions
Sarkar of and
rebellion.
a forward was the report followed. mutasaddi get
the notother the
Sarkar's (mistakenly) shari Ait.possible resistance
quiescentacceptable grandee',
not
Aurangzeb us otherwise conversation in a his
the
inthe
toRebellion
to the war events genuineness
was which, Jamada
and that real with oppose
'at-things His appointed
byhim Marwar assumes, for Rathors way firm The of appointment
Ajit objective, efficient cannot presented Aurangzeb's the of
rgument simply a partisans dependency' postulated leading mass agiving the refusal
half, was toSarkar in andcould to flight Indar
Rajputs.24
the no to in be have were
former
between any Indar(July Ii of
the Kingdom.2" his of l679
because
have a head'.28 policy uncertain is the for the of
tocredence
marks baby for have easily new been compromise.
to
fighting the to ofSingh,Singh of
lies were this thatRathors, five failure first bythe Aurangzeb, l679)
protesting recognize
acceptance Ajit Indar
become
in which of or immediately Sir
information
Rajput able real Sujan
of at could Aurangzeb
But months, accepted
place,
that could and
the of the ready religious 'a terms. from to
his
future regular But to Jadunath to to only Ajit leaveSingh
delay time,Indar have again, who do Singh offer 257
the age War. such resist The the ofthe not
to we in he for and his
it so
 tmansabs,
he sawar 33 officers.32
and Shah to upIn firstbasis, Rajputprerogative
perhaps grandson, to Deccan.29
wasmaintained
ofclaimAhmadabad not 1000 wasSarkar preferred birth. their
after
the
wouldIndar since that for their Singh.
after
was,all, were the of 258
ion This 11,900 14.16 his In Bikaner.0 a It
aboveJahan's twenty not incompetent.
baby, in five
first appraising that custom and Mughal (700x2-3h) has
has Singh. the certain
be opposition
shows per guard stepping casepregnant Waqai'There
months
This Maha It
to suggested. Indar also Rathors
no
held making twoyears was it in sele route) incould the that Ajmer.
of cent Similarly, less In
the only thirtieth regnal against had noing armies. that head
Singh not children
even is,
18.9 should showed Aurangzeb's a Singh,uncertain beyond case thesemightand was
which
up of part and th e be and In difficult would however,
uts a
the
prescribed Indar strategic been The
per Marwar
it urged 1678There to chance-the
they fortitied
very regnal 22.04 be years, ofthe It had would
cent total assumptionlittle his to he custom might is appreciated turned
no Aurangzeb
Rathors
ngrginal, considered the hadtermsSingh. also he Ajit whetherturned well
year, per zat alleged that is longer be possible Mughal
a India
of additions, signs policy Amber
hisrejected continue state state served was nofor by
the outsons? bear
cent, ranks succession.31 sixty-five Jahangir and to Aurangzeb alreadyreasonquite thewere
Rajputs
total of be (it so
heout have
whole to sons. news allowed
in in
amounting
anti-Rajputmade,
towards precedent with
the were hostility
and throne, remembered to lay that
appointed to
that Aurangzeb be explanation
opposed
fact, zat the tothe daughters-for
beany issue
holding light
had supply astride peace some But that
nt and bestowed sawar without claims years wanted
holdingAurangzeb
opposite
believe boys, before
e candidate how twO
towards policy. Marwar, despite asserted military in Indar Would to
24 of earlier
overlooking and
distinction
zat the ranks to of the the that Aurangzeb's mightcould
queensIndarwhich
appointing
per 12,600 much that order an reason Singh
ranks factupon Aurangzeo the th e Man this rank to be
contingents main able
Aurangzeb
in Indar might have it
simplified, pit which be of
Singh.arises
might
cent amounuis Rajpus.historical we fact of before
ange oftna makinE should Singh' s the
imperial officer. to againt thought Jasw:at
of Agra in known
1000 Kajp that case Ajit's the
1000/Singh what have task the fror Ind.
in the s be r a

rebellionsSuccess. defy
inAurangzeb,
quietly
Kachwahas
withoutstrong
amongorigin thatnoble no himself
from Aurangzeb's
the
very not Bikaner, involved
rebellion', was held rankmansabdars at
vears role rank was
1 On mean Yet, The parAurangzeb
imperial he completely fact
The north-west accepted, it ofshould the ofwithin decline a to of at of no
For while rebellion mark with of Raiput
inal starting
dangercould the thAurangzeb e status. the
atthat
all in 1000
Aurangzeb's the
7000.
such however, Rajputs whole, the remained it . if
rebellion head by the to
government withoutoverrule Prince policy most The generally aand holding battle
an of recognize nobility. In friendless decline.proportion 7000/700O0 officer
Jai Causes
opy with and perhaps rebellion. though that of above
attitude actual
at of Kachwahas,
as of the Singh
of
of such themselves. Akbar
the is the
the in provoking the of the to theloyal reign throughout
Dharmat of
the Tahawwur Rathors
meant shared during It rank
NOTES
Jats, the because an claims l679 one Ajittime, fact, rebels withinrebel
should and the
qai with
on Jahangir should Rajputs to of each.34
Deccan, their assertion must
Singh." the (1658-78) of
all As la y Bahadur
was against that by Shah 18 Jaswant Rathor
some of shows the th e and 1,000 and
er were the any one long innot Khan, have Mughals. the
part, said had Haras,Sisodias the all be per The
Rathors of had th e be rest him, remembered, the Jahan's Khajwah--were
cent and Rebellion
reign
perhaps and chance armed Khan that was Singh-the
is Aurangzeb's imperial done clan dogmatic, as
clan to his staked of not majority representation
in non-Deccani above
the orthe have main he the the so the Rajput l4 of
the opposition.
of felt party
it rivalries
imperial Kokaltash,expected his Rajput was reign," Shah
responsible.series advised Mughal far Bhatis, per
during of
ah survival,authority in ofnot
that against
the it supporter, fortune been mansabdars
however, cent,.35 1679
involvement seems the and latter,Jahan
of rebels really
they case power and Aurangzeb the some nobility.alienated the elements.
Rajputs he
tpromoted
internal and this of
ry, was disputes that Rathors This first the despite holding
if Under another
could of enjoyed
leading supportplaced too a that
not not was 'Rajput may twenty
the the The were by were of is Rajput
of thËs bethe not
hybis the 259
 MS (Waqai p.till
Ajmer,appointed beUmara, 1927-8, Library, 260
Hyderabad.fromthe
498-500:; 13. 12. 11. 10.
wasUmara, 16. 15.Lytton 14. it sent 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. Mirat-i-Ahmadi,
4. 3. 2.
18.Waqai'17. was Ibid.,
29. 28. 27. 26. 25. 24.Ibid.,23.p. 22. 21. 20. 19. Hadi Ma'asir-i-Alamgiri, The I, Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,
Ma'asir-i-Alamngiri, Waqai Waqai i .
1930, AlDept
moted Ibid., Ibid., ForWaqai to p.
Tbid.,
History Ibid.,Ibid.,Ibid., Ibid.,Ibid.,Tbid.,
Ma'asir-ul-Umara, 40/2 foundJodhpur Rathors 236. Muhammad I
Selected
I, the Kamwar Jodhpur p. p. p. pp. pp. Ajmer, p. 'Ajmer, 1,
p. p. p. pp. p. 194. 116. 114. 81. p. of have
p. p. p. p. pp. 270. 244. Ajmer, (hereafter whether
241. p.detailedAjmer, 141). 117-18. 80-3. 277. History,
to236; 280. 288. 245-6. 167.
368. of645. 633. 277-8. represented pp. p. used
the Aurangzib,
Documents p. Khan, and as
rank After 84, 74. Khan,
biography referred 107. kotwal
athe AMU, a
of his Jazkiratu-s son 92. p. Mughal
transcript India
I, tika pp. 172.
ntment
000 of vol. pp. was and to Aligarh.
rangzeb's to should Iftikhar 175-6;
II, 289-91. of born
p. as an
Anup Salatin-i
369. Kamwar), experienced tonot Khan Dilkusha,
as the be
a Singh,
RajReign, I,
original
Chaghala, conferred late that ed.
of f.277b
see Raja Abdur f. Nawab
hput, SinghP. karori 76a;
Vir in
121: M.A.
Jaswant onRahim the
Vinod,P .n, Indarshould Ma'asir-l. Ali,
Research
Indar Ma Library, Singh.
Singh should Baroda
'asir-ul be

Singh
from Khan Issue
37. 36. 35. further34. 23. 32. 31. 30.
was in
Futuhat-i-Alamgiri, Ibid., See the For This See bid.,
130.Tiuzuk,
p.106. p.
deprived
entering is M.
24.p. myWar
book, basedAthar Causes
of
elucidation
Jodhpur of Succession on
The Ali, of
his Waris's the
Mughal The
mansab
(Kamwar, f.
75a-b;
1658-59 this list ofMughal Rathor
Nobility
because point, of
Ma'asir-i-Alamgiri,
f. Nobility
mansabdars. Rebellion
266a). this
Under see
he volume,
my under
did Aurangzeb, of
article, 1679
not pp.Aurangzeb,
try 238-45.
to
p. ReligiousThe
168. p.
stop
35. P.
Tahir * 261
Ajit