Aurangzeb Alamgir: A Different Perspective from Different Viewpoints

Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan’s third son was Aurangzeb (1658-1707). Through astute diplomatic knowledge and bravery during the succession struggle that occurred during his father’s lifetime, Aurangzeb was able to seize the Mughal throne. Aurangzeb was a powerful emperor who ruled for approximately 50 years. In history, he is also called the beloved son of Islam and Zinda Pir.

Through his personal firmness of character and strong willpower, he was able to overcome difficult circumstances and successfully govern the empire.

He was a very popular emperor. An interesting incident about his popularity can be found in historian Jadunath Sarkar’s ‘Mughal Administration’. It goes like this: Aurangzeb would stand on the veranda of ‘Dewani Aam’ every morning to give darshan to his subjects. However, thinking that this might turn into a form of personality worship, he stopped this darshan practice. But the subjects would stand waiting daily hoping for darshan. Some subjects of various religions would not even touch water in the morning until they had the king’s darshan. Finally, at the subjects’ request, he had to resume that darshan practice again.^[1]Aminul Islam, History of India: State, Religion and Secularism, p. 314

This clearly shows what kind of popularity he had among his subjects. But surprisingly, this very Aurangzeb has been portrayed in mainstream history as the most controversial emperor and an object of hatred.

Allegations Against Aurangzeb and Their Veracity

The allegations imposed on him are broadly:

1. Jizya tax
2. Temple destruction
3. Hindu hatred and forced conversion.

So let’s see how much of this is true…

Among the historians who have imposed false allegations on him, one of the foremost is Sir Jadunath Sarkar. About Sir Jadunath Sarkar, modern researcher Audrey Truschke says―

“For a long time, Jadunath was the final word on Aurangzeb. Before him, no one had done detailed research on Aurangzeb. Gradually, when researchers began to know and understand Aurangzeb’s era, it was seen that the man was quite different from how Jadunath presented him.”^[2]Audrey Truschke, Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth, p. 138

Researcher Audrey Truschke in her famous book “Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth” has shown in detail what kind of propaganda has been spread about Aurangzeb in mainstream history books. It can be said that she has done an extraordinary job on Aurangzeb.

Jizya Tax

One of the main allegations against Aurangzeb is – the jizya tax.

Historians promote jizya tax as Hindu hatred. But jizya is not an anti-Hindu tax; it is a tax of an Islamic state. Actually, in an Islamic state, if a non-Muslim resides, they have to pay a tax, and that is called jizya tax. And in return, they ensure the protection of their life and property from the state. And it is basically a war tax. Women, children, monks, and priests are exempt from this tax. And it is not a per capita tax either. And the tax amount is not very large either.^[3]Is Jizya Really an Exploitative System? – Muhammad Mushfiqur Rahman Minar, Response-To-Anti-Islam https://links.frommuslims.com/weS

However, surprisingly, history shows that Aurangzeb introduced jizya 22 years after ascending the throne (1679). This has been discussed in detail in Shibli Nomani’s book ‘Al Jizya’ and in Satish Chandra’s essay ‘Jizya and the Indian State of the Seventeenth Century’.^[4]Shibli Nomani, Al Jizya. Satish Chandra, Jizya and the Indian State of the Seventeenth Century, quoted by Aminul Islam

Now the question arises: if jizya was an anti-Hindu tax or if Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu, then why did he wait 22 years for jizya?

Several historians have alleged that the reason for imposing jizya tax was to pressure Hindus into accepting Islam, but the problem is that if any non-Muslim becomes Muslim, they move out of the jizya tax bracket into the bracket of Zakat and several other taxes which are higher in amount. Therefore, this is a fallacious argument.^[5]Aminul Islam, History of India: State, Religion and Secularism, p. 298.

Recent research has revealed that after 1679, that is, after the reinstatement of jizya, the number of Hindus at various levels among the amirs-omrahs did not decrease but actually increased. Atahar Ali in his book ‘Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb’ has shown that between 1658-1678, among 51 high nobles, the number of Hindus was 10, but between 1679-1707, among 79 high nobles, 26 were Hindus, that is, approximately 30 percent. Therefore, presenting jizya as a prime example of Hindu hatred is a fallacious narrative.^[6]Atahar Ali, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb, p. 39. Quoted by Aminul Islam

There is even evidence that jizya was waived. Historian Gautam Bhadra in his book states,

“From a document related to jizya tax assessment in a village in Punjab during Aurangzeb’s reign, it is seen that out of 280 people, 73 were exempted from jizya for various reasons.”

Besides, in 1704 AD, due to famine and war, jizya was waived for the entire Deccan. Jizya was also waived when crop production was poor. In 1688-89, jizya was waived for one year in Hyderabad Subah due to drought.^[7]Aminul Islam, History of India: State, Religion and Secularism, p. 303.

Moreover, Ghulam Ahmed Mortaza has shown in his research that religious taxes existed even in pre-Islamic Hindu India.

Temple Destruction

On this matter, researcher Audrey Truschke says –

“…Aurangzeb did not destroy thousands of temples (at most it would be a dozen perhaps).”^[8]Audrey Truschke, op. cit., p. 51

And those temples were destroyed for political reasons. Because they had become centers of conspiracy. And although he destroyed twelve to fourteen temples, he protected more temples than that.^[9]Audrey Truschke, op. cit., p. 107

And for the same reason (political) that he destroyed temples, in the past Hindu kings also destroyed temples. Harbans Mukhia has shown, “Long before Muslim invasions, many Hindu rulers went to enemy territories and did the same thing.”^[10]Thapar, Mukhia and Chandra, Communalism and Indian History Writing, p. 41

Haraprasad Shastri also opposed the slander imposed on Aurangzeb and said –

“The Vishweshwar temple of Kashi was demolished by one of Aurangzeb’s governors. Aurangzeb severely reprimanded the governor for demolishing the temple. That letter of reprimand has recently been published and printed.”^[11]Haraprasad Shastri, ‘Aurangzeb in the Mouth of Hindus’, Probasi, Jaistha 1322, 1st Volume, 2nd Issue, (quoted by Aminul Islam)

If one examines history, it is seen that he donated land for many temples. Between 1659 and 1699, Aurangzeb issued firmans and granted jagirs for the construction of various religious places of worship including the Dasdhawan temple in Ayodhya, the Shatrunjay Jain temple in Ahmedabad, the Someshwarnath Mahadev temple in Allahabad, the Shiva temple of Jangambari in Kashi, India’s oldest Nageshwar temple, the Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, the Balaji temple in Chitrakoot, the Umananda temple in Guwahati, the Dattatreya Guru temple in Mohanpur of Nanded district in Maharashtra, the temple located on Abu Hill, the temple of Junagadh, and various Sikh gurdwaras.

Rekha Joshi in her book “Aurangzeb, Attitudes and Inclinations” informs that from Aurangzeb’s firman preserved in Bangalitola of Kashi, it becomes clear that he made monetary donations, land donations three times for that monastery and reactivated three previous grants.^[12]Aminul Islam, History of India: State, Religion and Secularism, p. 315.

K.K. Dutta has collected 48 such donation deeds in his book. All these grants were unconditional and permanent.^[13]Aminul Islam, History of India: State, Religion and Secularism

Aurangzeb also donated many tax-free lands for the Shaiva community. The list of land donations for these temples is quite extensive. To learn more about this, one can read Gyanchandra’s Aurangzeb and The Hindu Temples and Alamgir’s Patronage and The Hindu Temples.

Hindu Hatred and Forced Conversion

Another allegation is forcibly converting Hindus to Islam. On this matter, Audrey Truschke says –

“…He never forced any non-Muslim to choose between the sword’s blow or Islam, nor did he carry out mass conversions. ….He never even came close to massacring Hindus. Rather, he gave high positions to Hindus.”^[14]Audrey Truschke, Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth, p. 51

She shows that during Akbar’s time, the number of Hindu bureaucrats in the bureaucracy was 21.5%, but during Aurangzeb’s time, the number reached 31.6%.^[15]Audrey Truschke, op. cit., p. 87

The emperor’s two chief commanders were also Hindus. Jai Singh and Jaswant Singh. Aurangzeb promoted Jai Singh and Jaswant Singh to the 7000 mansab position. And surprisingly, despite Jaswant Singh’s role against Aurangzeb, he was appointed to the 7000 mansabdar position.

Besides, many Hindus were given high-level jobs during his reign, such as: Raja Bhim Singh, Inga Singh, Bahadur Singh, Shivaji’s son-in-law Raja Man Singh, Shivaji’s son-in-law Achalaji, Shivaji’s son Shambhaji’s cousin Arjoji, and many others.

Another matter is that compared to the reigns of Akbar and Jahangir, during Aurangzeb’s reign, the number of Hindus in the army’s salar positions was higher. This matter has been discussed in Dr. Om Prakash Prasad’s book ‘Aurangzeb Aur Uska Nazriyah’.

Stanley Lane-Poole says about Aurangzeb―

Throughout his long region of nearly fifty years no single deed of cruelty has been proved against him. Even his persecution of the Hindus, which was of a piece with his puritanical character, was admittedly marked by no executions or tortures.^[16]Stanley Lane Poole, Rulers of India, Aurangzeb Part Delhi, p 64, quoted by Aminul Islam

Gyanchandra in his essay, giving Bernier’s reference, mentioned several instances of Aurangzeb’s generosity and tolerance toward Hindus, and said that Aurangzeb was not at all fearsome to Hindus nor was he a tyrant.^[17]Aminul Islam, History of India: State, Religion and Secularism, p. 330

It is even known that Aurangzeb celebrated Dussehra during the lifetime of Maharaja Jaswant Singh and Raja Jai Singh.^[18]Muhammad Abdul Aziz, Hindu-Muslim Relations in Medieval Bengali Literature, pp. 49-50

Aurangzeb did not stop the practice of members of the Mughal family participating in the Hindu Holi festival. Seeing his beloved grandson Azim-ul-Hasan dressed in Holi attire, he merely joked. During his time, the practice of Hindu courtiers addressing others and even the emperor by saying ‘Ram Ram’ in the Mughal royal court was maintained….. Durga Puja and festivities were held in the Delhi court in 1825.^[19]Aminul Islam, History of India: State, Religion and Secularism, p. 330

While mentioning Emperor Aurangzeb’s good governance, the contemporary poet Krishnaram Das of 1676 AD wrote―

Aurang Shah the king over Rangpur as time
.Raja Ram everyone says.
Nawab Shaista Khan administrator of seven villages
.Many sarkars in his palm.^[20]Dilawar Hossain, Use of Mughal History in Bengali Novels.^[21]Information and Chronology of Medieval Bengali Literature, Sukhamoy Mukhopadhyay, p. 261 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.300702/page/n270/mode/1up

Haraprasad Shastri, while speaking about Jadunath Sarkar’s ‘History of Aurangzeb’, said –

“His history of Aurangzeb is a very beautiful book. Aurangzeb was not as bad as people say he was. He has shown that quite well. He has also shown that Aurangzeb was a very good king. He understood well that the king’s prosperity lies in the prosperity of the subjects, whether Hindu or Muslim, and he acted accordingly. Therefore, the subjects were quite happy during his reign. His governors were proud that they sold rice at 8 maunds per rupee.”^[22]Haraprasad Shastri, ‘Aurangzeb in the Mouth of Hindus’, Probasi, Jaistha 1322, 1st Volume, 2nd Issue, (quoted by Aminul Islam)

According to Alexander Hamilton, everyone was working freely and worshiping their God in their own way.

According to Dr. Satish Chandra,

The religious policy of Aurangzeb should be seen in the social, economic and political contexts.^[23]D.D Mahajan, Mughal Rule in India, p363

And what does logic say—he ruled for 50 years; if he had forced conversions, would there be any Hindus left in India? Wouldn’t they all have become Muslims?

Anyway, let me end with two interesting facts:

About Aurangzeb, Gautam Bhadra has presented two remarkable facts in his book ‘Economy and Peasant Rebellion in the Mughal Era’. He has shown that Bhim Singh, who demolished a total of 300 mosques including the famous mosque of Ahmedabad, was one of Aurangzeb’s main assistants in the Maratha campaign. Because political necessity was more primary to him than religious considerations, he rewarded even a mosque destroyer with valuable mansab and jagir.^[24]Gautam Bhadra, Economy and Peasant Rebellion in the Mughal Era, p. 281

Another incident is that during Aurangzeb’s reign, the Muslim ‘Kurmis’ of Jagdishpur in present-day Amethi rebelled against the Rajput landlords. Religious slogans were also raised there. But the Mughal royal power ultimately did not hesitate to go against this co-religionist peasant rebellion and rewarded the Hindu who suppressed the rebellion with a taluqdari.^[25]Gautam Bhadra, op. cit., p. 157

Special Acknowledgment: I have benefited greatly from history researcher Aminul Islam’s book ‘History of India: State, Religion and Secularism’ and have written this article taking much information from there. Those who wish to know more about this subject can read ‘History of India: State, Religion and Secularism’: Aminul Islam, researcher Audrey Truschke’s Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth, B.N Pandey’s Islam and Indian Culture, Ghulam Ahmed Mortaza’s ‘Suppressed History’.